What is passive voice?

[hippokrene]

I was always told that the passive voice was when a Verb happened and no one was there to Subject it. These abandoned Verbs are then taken in, usually by a form of ‘to be.’

'We ate the eggs' is active while 'The eggs were eaten' is passive. The Subject might appear later on --‘The eggs were eaten by us’ – but by then the Verbs have already done time in juvenile hall for drug possession or gang activity so it’s too late. There’s a special name for those verbs, but I don’t know what it is. I refer to them as Latchkey Verbs.

In an earlier era, the passive voice was considered fine, but in 1918 Strunk and White began their No Verb Left Behind program, and we learned that passive voice was a communist plot to destroy America. Passive voice was unclear, weak, and indecisive while active voice was vigorous, noble, and loved Jesus, its mother, and Uncle Sam.

Now, I’m going through an online edition of The Elements of Style and I’m boondoggled. According to Strunk and White's The Elements of Style.

Passive: There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground.
Active: Dead leaves covered the ground.

Huh?! How is the first one passive?

'There were dead leaves' and 'They lay on the ground' are both active so 'They were (a great number of) dead leaves laying on the ground' must also be active.

Passive: The sound of the falls could still be heard.
Active: The sound of the falls still reached our ears.

Who could still hear the falls? It doesn’t say; the subject has abandoned the verb. Definitely passive.

Passive: The reason that he left college was that his health became impaired.
Active: Failing health compelled him to leave college.

‘He left college’ = active
‘His health became impaired’ = active
‘The reason… was… his health’ = active

Now, it’s a convoluted sentence. I’d prefer ‘He left college because his health became impaired.’ But, again, I don’t see the passive voice.

The last example given in the book.

Passive It was not long before he was very sorry that he had said what he had.
Active: He soon repented his words.

First, being sorry is not the same as repenting.

Secondly,

‘He was very sorry’ = active
‘He had said’ = active
‘What he had (said)’ = active

Can anyone help me? I’m so confused!

 

[kmtolan]

but in 1918 Strunk and White began their No Verb Left Behind program, and we learned that passive voice was a communist plot to destroy America. Passive voice was unclear, weak, and indecisive while active voice was vigorous, noble, and loved Jesus, its mother, and Uncle Sam.

Had to clean the monitor on that one.

A "passive" voice is anything the editor red-lines and states is "passive".

Or, to put it in terms I can understand - it's anytime you take too damn long to get to the point. Personal faves are "was almost", "just about to", and a lot of stuff with "had been" in it.

Kerry (Look, I really don't have a bloody clue - that's why God made copy editors)

 

[Susan Boulton]

Passive, well. I tend to go with what reads well, and does not waffle... I have word set to flag passive voice. When it does I think about it, and if it reads better altered into so called active then I do it. If it doesn't and clashes with my writing style, then no I don't.

Too many rules clogs the writing process. Things like this should be tackled in editing.

 

[hippokrene]

It's good to know that other writers are as clueless as I. Warms the cockles, it does.

That said, while too many rules might clog writing*, I'd still like to know what exactly passive voice is.

*I edit as I write and while it slows down my work, it's never caused a a complete blockage.

 

[Fung Koo]

I may not be right, but I think of it like declaring ownership.

"I am here."
"Here I am."

The former is more "active" because you start with identifying the WHO and then the WHAT; WHO owns the WHAT. The latter is more "passive" because you start with identifying the WHAT and move to the WHO; WHAT owns the WHO.

In addition, the former is a declarative statement, whereas the latter is an announcement. Stating Something (I am here) versus Describing Something (Here I am). Declarative statements are usually active, and announcements are typically passive.

Ownership, in this case, is primarily determined by precedence, which is established by the order in which things appear. But it's also about establishing clear and direct relationships between the WHO and the WHAT. Drawn out sentences particularly suffer from precedence ordering.

"When he was arguing, Johnny got red in the face." (passive, WHAT WHO, WHO WHAT)
"Johnny got red in the face when he was arguing." (active, but still pretty passive, WHO WHAT WHO WHAT)
"Johnny got red in the face when arguing." (active, a bit less passive, WHO WHAT WHAT)
"Johnny was red-faced when arguing." (active, less passive, WHO WHAT WHAT)
"Johnny was a red-faced arguer." (active, WHO WHAT)

The latter is the most active basically because it is the most succinct. The ownership is clear, and the relationship between the WHO and WHAT is direct. Obviously, though, you don't always want to default to the most succinct, whether for artistic reasons or because the tone of voice would be out of character for your narrator/speaker.

Other things that tend be considered passive are hedges, where you couch the ownership:

"It is a nice day."
"In my opinion, it is a nice day."

"In my opinion" is unnecessary -- you wrote it, you're saying it (or your character is), therefore it stands to reason that it is your opinion. Stating it as such weakens the strength of the statement, rendering it "passive." Again, the former is a declarative statement, the latter an announcement.

Some instances of passivity, though, are considered proper. Dialogue represents an interesting challenge in active vs. passive.

"'Joey,' said Jeremiah, 'I like your tie.'"
"'Joey, I like your tie,' said Jeremiah."

Dialogue introduces complexity because it often involves the secondary attribution of action to a subject of the speaker's statement. The former is actually the more active because it operates as (WHO) WHO (WHAT). The latter is more passive because it operates as (WHO WHAT) WHO. In most cases with dialogue you want to identify the speakers upfront.

Again, this goes toward keeping the relationship between the WHOs and the WHATs clear. You might say that both of the examples are clear (and I'd agree with you), but the convention is to have a sentence end declaratively. By making the "I like your tie" the end of the sentence (WHO WHAT), you make it declarative, and thereby active.

There is a caveat, though, when writing longer dialogues. You will typically want to open with (WHO) WHO (WHAT), finishing with the declarative statement. But your subsequent sentences can adopt the (WHO WHAT) WHO structure because dialogue is typically read as a continuous chain of linked clauses between a primary and secondary speaker.

"'Joey,' said Jeremiah, 'I like your tie.'
"'Thank you, Jeremiah' replied Joey."

Again, this is about attributing ownership and precedence. In this case, Jeremiah is the primary WHO because he is the first speaker, and Joey is the subject of his statement. Joey's replies are thus secondary to Jeremiah's statements, so he is the secondary speaker (WHO). The formal convention is often to make the secondary speaker passive and the primary speaker active.

Obviously these roles can and do change mid-conversation. Also, there are some sentences where it simply doesn't make grammatical sense to choose a more "active" voice. In these cases, you might choose to put your dialogue tag at the front.

"'For the love of God," exclaimed Darry, 'woman!'"
"Darry exclaimed, 'For the love of God, woman!"

Questions will often reverse the precedence, because the speaker (by asking a question) makes the addressee the primary speaker. Asking a question gives ownership of the conversation to the respondent.

"'Would you like to go to dinner with me?' asked Jeremiah.
"'I would,' replied Joey, 'Thank you.'"

Anyway... blah blah blah.

That's how I think of it. I leave it to Dawnstorm and the Grammar Team to correct me

 

[Dawnstorm]

That's how I think of it. I leave it to Dawnstorm and the Grammar Team to correct me

Heh, well, I didn't read your entire post (but I will, when I have the time). I don't need to, because what you seem to be talking about has nothing to do with the passive voice, the grammatical category that Mr. Strunk confusingly wrote about.

I was always told that the passive voice was when a Verb happened and no one was there to Subject it. These abandoned Verbs are then taken in, usually by a form of ‘to be.’

'We ate the eggs' is active while 'The eggs were eaten' is passive. The Subject might appear later on --‘The eggs were eaten by us’ – but by then the Verbs have already done time in juvenile hall for drug possession or gang activity so it’s too late. There’s a special name for those verbs, but I don’t know what it is. I refer to them as Latchkey Verbs.

You're pretty much right there, and - for practical purposes - you're well equipped to identify the passive voice.

Grammatically speaking, though, it's more complex, and some linguists claim English does not have a passive voice at all; instead they have a couple of constructions that are equivalent to what would - in Latin and other romance languages - the passive voice. Is this important?

Not to your avarage language user, and not - generally - to you, since you know how to identify the passive voice. But in this case, I have to get a bit more technical than I usually would, since you're bringing up the Strunk-debacle. It's one worst parts in the entire booklet, and it's not a very good booklet to begin with.

So let's start at the beginning. What do grammarians call "voice"?

Voice - like the other three: tense, aspect and mood - determines the form the verb takes in a verb phrase. Voice makes the verb vary form when it's syntactic alignment with it's arguments changes. What does that mean?

A verb's arguments are the "participants" a verb needs to be "complete". But bear in mind that these are not participants in an action; they're participants in a verb. What's the difference?

The action of raining involves no participants at all. But different languages treat this action differently:

Italian: Piove.
English: It is raining.

See how the Italian verb takes no argument at all, while the English verb takes a single argument, a "subject"? Notice how the subject in "It is raining," is a dummy variable? A non-referential pronoun, without any meaning whatsoever? It's only there because English demands at least one argument from the verb, and that's the subject. (You could find interesting constellations, though, such as in the Beatles' song: "Tommorow will rain, but I'll follow the sun." Huh? Did they transform a temporal preposition into a subject? Did they delete the subject and - magician's trick - show you the preposition where the subject should be? How to analyse this?)

Okay, so English verbs demand at least one argument, and this argument is the subject. If the verb has exactly this one argument, it's called an "intransitive verb".

But many verbs have more than one argument. These verbs are called "transitive". This gets pretty complicated, but the main two variants are.

Transitive:

Subject, Direct Object: I (Subject) bake (verb) a cake (direct object).

Di-Transitive:

Subject, Direct Object, Indirect Object: I (Subject) bake (verb) you (indirect object) a cake (direct object).

[The naughty prepositional phrases make things more complicated. "I bake a cake for you," means the same thing as "I bake you a cake," but linguists don't agree how to analyse this. Is "for you" an adjunct or an argument? [Adjuncts are optional additions, things the verb doesn't need to be "complete". But let's not go there. Yet.]

Okay.

Now what is passive voice? It's an operation that reduces the number of arguments.

I bake a cake. ---dismiss "I", promote "cake"---> A cake was baked.

I give you a present. ---dismiss "I", promote "you", leave "present" where it is---> You were given a present.

See? Easy, isn't it? (I'm again ignoring prepositional phrases, as they compicate things a lot.)

So where's the catch?

Remember how I said, above, that some linguists say that there is no passive voice in English? Well, here's why. In Latin, where the terminology for voice comes from, "voice" is expressed by a suffix. Every verb has endings, and they're either active or passive. The endings tell you how to read the verb. "Amo," in Latin, is a complete sentence, and means "I love." "Amor," means "I am loved." No arguments necessary at all. It's all in the endings: person, voice, tense.

See? No argument reduction involved at all. It's different. Latin expresses through verb endings, what English expresses through word order. Those linguists who say that there is no passive voice in English, mean that there is no verb ending that expresses the passive voice. That is all.

But from there the whole issue becomes dodgy. The passive voice is easy to identify; it's derived from the default verbal pattern as found in the dictionary, and in predictable ways.

But the active voice? This is not so clear. Since English has no verb endings that express "voice", how can we identify the active voice? If we're only identifying the "active voice" by absence of the passive voice, do we even have a useful category? Wouldn't it be more economic to just say we've got the passive voice as a special transformation of the default of transitive verbs? If we do use the category of "active voice", do we apply it to all that is not "passive voice", or only to cases where the "passive voice" is also possible?

In addition, we're opening another can of worms: are there other "voices"? How about, say, a "reciprocal voice"?

They kissed each other. ---dismiss each other as redundant---> They kissed.

This would be a rare case of object promotion into the subject. (Well, it's not reliable, as the "reciprocal voice" would not work for "They hit each other." Actually, it wouldn't work for most verbs that take "each other" as an object, so linguists generally view this as a lexical issue, not a grammatical one, but well...)

Okay, end digression. The important thing to remember here is this: while the "passive voice" in English is easy to identify by the verb-form alteration, the "active voice" is impossible to detect. We assume it's there, because we have a passive voice, and we know from Latin that they come in pairs. Your language philosophy matters. You could refuse to acknowledge that they come in pairs: passive voice, yes, active voice no. You could acknowledge that they come in pairs, but only for transitive verbs. Or you could acknowledge that they come in pairs, and state whatever isn't passive is active.

You have taken the last route, for example, when you say:

The reason... was... that... (active)
​

But you'll find that there is no passive version of "was" in English: "was" doesn't take objects, so there's nothing to promote, and the verb won't change (here's what it would look like: "Fred is my cat." ---> "My cat was been by Fred.")

Someone who took the second route would say:

The reason... was... that... (Error. ?illegal operation)​

It's neither active nor passive. There's no transitive verb.

Now, the most common position hovers somewhere between the "voice only relevant for transitive verbs" and "if it's not passive, it's active". It's basically like this:

Transitive + intransitive verbs: either active or passive voice

Linking verbs: neither active nor passive voice; irrelevant
​

(This approach has the big advantage that it gets around the mess that prepositional objects cause, here. I suppose it's time I talk about it, just for the curious? Very well. "Sleep" is an intransitive verb. "I sleep," is complete. "I've slept in this bed," includes "in this bed", but that's just an adjunct. It's not necessary to the verb. Yet, it's possible - if rare - to use the prepositional object as the subject of the verb, even though it's not an argument of the verb. "This bed has been slept in. The sheets are all roughed up!" This is a favourite research topic on voice in English. [Notice that there are also "prepositional verbs", where the prepositional object is part of the verb's arguments: "Joe can be depended on."].)

Okay. Now it's time to remember that Mr. Strunk calls the rule "Use the active voice," not "Don't use the passive voice." This is significant, because if you use a linking verb (most often "to be"), you're not using the active voice. You're not using the passive voice, either, but that - according to Strunk - is not a virtue if you're not using the active voice instead.

The sentence that precedes the examples you cite, reads:

Many a tame sentence of description or exposition can be made lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice for some such perfunctory expression as there is, or could be heard.

What you're getting rid of is "perfunctory expressions" (suitably vague for a very vague booklet), not passive voice (though apparantly a "perfunctory expression" can contain a passive voice). All the three other examples contain a linking verb, "was":

There were leaves [This one's actually more complex, but let's leave it at that and go with what Strunk - persumably - thought about it.] // The reason was // It was not long, was sorry //

All linking verbs. You're right that they're not passives, but neither are they active, if you buy into the linking-verbs-are-neither-active-nor-passive theory. If Strunk doesn't buy into the theory, what he says makes no sense; and much as I like to bash this booklet, I don't think Strunk was ignorant of grammar.

I'm not surprised that you were confused. Not even the editors of Elements got it. Remember the sound of the falls? Well it got replaced in later editions with a rooster's crowing:

At dawn the crowing of a rooster could be heard. ---> The cock's crow came with dawn.

Notice that there is no "transitive" in the improved version? A vague guideline made even vaguer by including an invalid example. This editing fiasco pretty much shows the value of Strunk's instructions outside of Strunk's classroom (it was originally a self-published teaching aid).

So, to summarise, Strunk's complicated, obscure and rarely understood point was:

Use transitive verbs in the active voice as a default.

- If you have passive voice, see if you can transform the verb into the active voice (you can't always; Strunk does at least have this disclaimer).

- If you have a linking verb, look at the meaning of the sentence and find a transitive verb that expresses it better (and of course use it in the active voice).

Strunk is silent on intransitive verbs. Maybe there's a third dictum implied?

- If you have an intransitive verb, re-write so that you have a transitive one:

It hasn't rained here for weeks. ---> Rain hasn't doused these streets for weeks.

Hm...?

Sorry for being that technical, but I really can see no way to clear up that confusion without going to that level of technicality.

 

[Fung Koo]

Heh, well, I didn't read your entire post (but I will, when I have the time). I don't need to, because what you seem to be talking about has nothing to do with the passive voice, the grammatical category that Mr. Strunk confusingly wrote about.

Than just what the heck am I on about?

I know I tend to make more sense to myself than to others , but I gotta say... what you're saying doesn't strike me as altogether that different from what I'm saying. You're clearly looking at it more technically than I am, but it seems to me that the concept is the same.

I'm aware of the lack of a grammatical active/passive voice in English. It is on that basis that we have to approach the issue. If there is no proper or easily identifiable voice embedded in the mechanics of the language itself, then we must be talking about something else when we refer to "active" and "passive." My understanding -- which specifically goes toward the execution of a series of sentences while writing, rather than examining the construction of a single sentence in reverse, or even looking at the concept of voice as used in multiple languages -- is that "active" means: clearly define WHO will be doing the WHAT. An independent sentence that does not clearly define the agency behind any given action is "passive."

"At dawn the crowing of a rooster could be heard."

At dawn (WHAT) the crowing (WHAT) of a rooster (secondary WHO) could be heard (WHAT) (by an implied listener, the primary WHO)

"The cock's crow came with dawn."

The cock's (secondary WHO) crow (WHAT) came with the dawn (WHAT) (to the ears of an implied listener, the primary WHO)

Both of these are passive, though the second attributes agency of the crowing to the cock, thereby making it seem active. The definite article "The" is the main reason this sentence can be called active at all, as it implies a direct correlation to a subsequent (or precedent) sentence that identifies the listener.

"At dawn the crowing of a rooster could be heard (by Jim)." Passive to the max.
"(Jim heard) the cock's crow (that) came with the dawn." This is the implied active voice.

Aside from the technicalities and the choice of terminology, isn't the message here the same? Introduce the person/thing that will make the action first to establish WHO (subject) will be causing the action (verb), thereby performing the WHAT (object).

Subject, Direct Object: I (Subject) bake (verb) a cake (direct object).

Just as easily turned into "I (WHO) bake a cake (WHAT)."

Subject, Direct Object, Indirect Object: I (Subject) bake (verb) you (indirect object) a cake (direct object).

Likewise: "I (WHO) bake (WHAT.1) you (secondary WHO) a cake (WHAT.2)."

Is "for you" an adjunct or an argument?

I'd call it a "qualifier." And in the rationale I'm applying, it would be the identification by the primary speaker of the action to be performed by/for/on behalf of the secondary "speaker" (in quotes in this case since there is no evidence to suggest that the secondary agent will actually speak).

I bake a cake.

WHO WHAT
Agent -> Action

---dismiss "I", promote "cake"---> A cake was baked.

WHAT WHAT

Did it bake itself? This one I wouldn't simply call passive -- I'd call it incomplete. Agency has been entirely stripped from the statement, ergo there is no ownership of the action.

I give you a present.

WHO WHAT

---dismiss "I", promote "you", leave "present" where it is---> You were given a present.

Similarly to the above, while this one might technically be passive it's also a total change in the attribution of agency. If "I give you a present" then the primary agent is "I" and the secondary is "you." The ownership of the action rests with the primary agent.

But if you "You were given a present" then "You" is a false primary agent. The actual primary agent is only implied, as "You were given a present (by Jim)." The secondary agent in the latter is actually the "You," and the statement itself is vague precisely because there is no identifiable primary agent performing/experiencing any activity. Instead, we have to infer the primary agent.

They kissed each other.

WHO WHAT

---dismiss "each other" as redundant---> They kissed.

Still WHO WHAT, though the WHO is compound.

It's no biggie which you choose. The only element of importance here would be context. If this sentence appears in the midst of others, what is the format of the sentences in its immediately context?

while the "passive voice" in English is easy to identify by the verb-form alteration, the "active voice" is impossible to detect.

Perhaps in an individual sentence, isolated from context, or without a contrasting alternative. But in context, sentences carry (I don't know the right term, but today I'll call it) attributional association. By which I mean, sentences are interconnected. The grammatical interpretation of an isolated sentence only addresses one element of its total construction. "Active" voice in English is all about clearly attributing ownership of the action.

The reason... was... that... (active)
...
The reason... was... that... (Error. ?illegal operation)

I don't get it.

Sorry for being that technical, but I really can see no way to clear up that confusion without going to that level of technicality.

You are the champ, but in terms of the rationale behind using the (perhaps grammatically non-existent) "active" voice, am I really so far out in left field? And if I am, then what am I actually talking about?

 

[tdnewton]

This is the way I remember.

Active: Something does something.
Passive: Something happens to something.

In the EOS example, the leaves are actively covering the ground vs. the ground is in a state of being covered by leaves.

 

[Dawnstorm]

I'm aware of the lack of a grammatical active/passive voice in English. It is on that basis that we have to approach the issue. If there is no proper or easily identifiable voice embedded in the mechanics of the language itself, then we must be talking about something else when we refer to "active" and "passive." My understanding -- which specifically goes toward the execution of a series of sentences while writing, rather than examining the construction of a single sentence in reverse, or even looking at the concept of voice as used in multiple languages -- is that "active" means: clearly define WHO will be doing the WHAT. An independent sentence that does not clearly define the agency behind any given action is "passive."

But when grammarians talk about the "passive voice", they are talking about a very precise concept. They are talking about a form of the verb. When grammarians say that there is no passive voice in English, they do not say that what others call the passive voice does not exist. They say it should not be called a "voice", and their argument is that in English it's a multi-word construction rather than a verb-inflection system. That is all. You're not free to go to the dictionary and pick any old definition of "passive" and "voice" you like. You can't just say that the "passive voice" is a "writerly voice" which sounds "passive".

Let's look at your original post:

"I am here."
"Here I am."

The former is more "active" because you start with identifying the WHO and then the WHAT; WHO owns the WHAT. The latter is more "passive" because you start with identifying the WHAT and move to the WHO; WHAT owns the WHO.

That may well be the case. But when grammarians talk about passive voice, they look only at the form the verb takes.

1. "am", 2. "am". Both are the same. What's more, they're clearly not passive voice. The passive voice of "to be" would, if it existed, be "am been". Whether this is then an instance of "active voice" depends entirely on your definition.

Strunk probably says it isn't active voice; hippokrene says it is. Thus an unexamined theoretic difference leads to confusion. It's important to get the terminology straight.

Going free-play to other meanings of "passive" or "voice" doesn't help. Quite the opposite. So whether there is a "passive voice" in English or not: the sentences in question are identical with respect to the verbal form any grammarian is talking about, when he's talking about the "passive voice" (or a "passive construction", if they choose not to use the grammatical term "voice").

"It is a nice day."
"In my opinion, it is a nice day."

"In my opinion" is unnecessary -- you wrote it, you're saying it (or your character is), therefore it stands to reason that it is your opinion. Stating it as such weakens the strength of the statement, rendering it "passive." Again, the former is a declarative statement, the latter an announcement.

Similarly here. "In my opinion" has no effect whatsoever on the form the verb takes and thus has nothing to do with what hippokrene and Strunk are talking about (albeit in slightly different terms). You're not wrong; you're just on a different boat than the two of them. It's a different conversation. (It's a bit like wondering whether a whale is a fish, and you start talking about starfish, because it contains the sound sequence "fish". Yes, it's that off. And, yes, it's very common online.)

But if you "You were given a present" then "You" is a false primary agent. The actual primary agent is only implied, as "You were given a present (by Jim)." The secondary agent in the latter is actually the "You," and the statement itself is vague precisely because there is no identifiable primary agent performing/experiencing any activity. Instead, we have to infer the primary agent.

This is true. But grammarians would call "you" a patient, and not an agent at all. If we're talking grammar, it helps to use the terms that are around. Alternatively, you can make up entirely new terms. But using existing terms ("agent") and changing their meaning causes confusion. Which happens all the time in Academia, of course.

But you're wrong: the statement is not vague. It's very precise. It just doesn't include any information about the "agent". It's not vague about agency anymore than I am vague about my cat's tail when I'm saying that I have a cat. Oh, and I'm also vague about whether I'm carrying an umbrella or not when I say "It's raining." A sentence isn't vague just because it omits interesting subject matter.

I don't get it.

"am" is a linking verb. Linking verbs do not take objects. Since they do not take objects there's nothing to promote. Hence there is no viable procedure to passivise "am". Some people take this to mean that "am" is neither in the active nor in the passive voice, and if you try to look for hints you fail, just like you fail when you're looking for lungs on a fish (until you find the lungfish, of course).

***

This is the way I remember.

Active: Something does something.
Passive: Something happens to something.

In the EOS example, the leaves are actively covering the ground vs. the ground is in a state of being covered by leaves.

Well, that's close enough, really, but - again - passive voice is about verbs, not about actions. People don't generally talk about this, because the difference is hard to grasp for people who haven't thought a lot about languages.

Take for example, the word "die". In "Joe died," did Joe do something, or did something happen to him? In "Joe fell from the roof," is "falling" an action? Verbal semantics are tricky that way, and if you're not carefuly and ignore the verb-form, you may misidentify passive voice, by applying a different sense of "does" and "happens to".

When you're looking at reference, you'll find that "actions" and "transactions" have "participant roles". Take for example "buy/sell". Whenever you buy something, someone else sells something. The activities don't change, no matter what verbs you use, but still you have four theoretic possibilities:

buy:active, buy: passive, sell:active, sell: passive.

1. I buy the car from Bill.
2. Bill was bought a car from by me. (Awkward, at best)

3. Bill sold me a car.
4. I was sold a car.

Action-wise, it doesn't matter whether I say that "I bought a car," or "I was sold a car." My activity-level is same in both sentences; it's the same situation. Yet, "I bought a car," is active voice, while "I was sold a car," is passive voice. The difference is one of perspective: "I was sold a car," retains the notion of someone doing the selling, while "I bought a car," does not. You're evoking two different perspectives on the same action. See?

This is also, I suppose, why people accuse the passive voice of being vague: it implies that there is an agent, but it doesn't state the agent (unless he's added in a by-phrase). If you think it through, though, "I was sold a car," is no more vague about the seller's identity than "I bought a car." In fact, "I bought a car," is even vaguer about the seller's identity, because it doesn't even hint at the seller's existence (you have to infer it from the verb's meaning).

Take for example the following progression:

1.1. The crime lord bribed the prime minister.
1.2. The prime minister was bribed by the crime lord.
1.3. The prime minister was bribed.
\/
2. The prime minister accepted a bribe.

Here, 1.2. is way more specific than 2. about the identity of the briber. 2. is the best (?) way to shift attention away from the briber. Yet, 2. is without a doubt a "transitive in the active voice" (to use Strunk's terms). In fact, in 1.2. the passive voice allows the crime lord to occupy the sentence final position, thus conferring special emphasis on his responsibility.

In short, don't confuse the "active part" of an action with the "agent" of a verb. In "I received a present," "I" am the passive part of the action (while the guy from whom I received the present is the active part), but "I" am also the "agent" of the verb. The two don't always match. One is semantic, the other is syntactic.

 

[NickeeCoco]

Just as easily turned into "I (WHO) bake a cake (WHAT)."



Likewise: "I (WHO) bake (WHAT.1) you (secondary WHO) a cake (WHAT.2)."



I'd call it a "qualifier." And in the rationale I'm applying, it would be the identification by the primary speaker of the action to be performed by/for/on behalf of the secondary "speaker" (in quotes in this case since there is no evidence to suggest that the secondary agent will actually speak).


WHO WHAT
Agent -> Action


WHAT WHAT

Did it bake itself? This one I wouldn't simply call passive -- I'd call it incomplete. Agency has been entirely stripped from the statement, ergo there is no ownership of the action.

"A cake was baked" is a complete sentence, especially seen within a context.

Antoinette threw a tantrum, because she did not have a slice of cake. A cake was baked. The princess was happy.


As annoying as the passive voice is, thank God for there being no middle voice in English. The middle voice has got to be the most confusing voice out there.

 

[Dawnstorm]

As annoying as the passive voice is, thank God for there being no middle voice in English. The middle voice has got to be the most confusing voice out there.

You had to bring that up. Actually, there are people who would call such sentences as "The book reads well," an instance of the middle voice.

 

[the mighty pen]

tdnewton is basically right.
The subject is what the verb is conjugated to.
Active voice is when the subject is 'verbing'
Passive is when the subject is 'being verbed'

ok, I'm just going to do the examples without quoting anything, because I'm new at this (don't know how, really)

Hippokrene:
first example: a mistake, (I think?) it is active.

second: technically, 'the sound' is the subject, and the verb is conjugated to it, but it is not doing the action. The subject isn't always what does the action, but it awlays conjugates the verb. that's how you know whether it's passive or not.
The thing doing the action can be there or not, it makes no difference. (i think this is what you meant by 'subject'?)

third example: "his health became impaired' is passive. It has became, which acts like a 'to be' verb, then the past participle of 'to impair'. the past participle has to be there for the passive. Usually, the verb will be conjugated with some form of 'to be', then it will have the past participle of the original desired verb (to impair). In this case, though, 'to become' took the place of 'to be'.

fourth: again, a mistake (I think?) . it's active. (crappy book?)


fung koo: you're talking about word order, which has nothing to do with active/passive voice. You were swapping word order without changing the meaning of the sentence.
every example you wrote was active voice.

Dawnstorm:
just a few things:
about the Italian 'piove'- It has an argument, it's just implied. In english, We have the same conjugation for many of the points of view (1st, 2nd, 3rd persons, singular, plural). Because of this, we always have to say our subject, because the verb form won't always imply it.
example: to go:
I go
You go
He goes
We go
They go

our conjugation is the same for most of those.
In Spanish (and I'm assuming Italian) all the verb conjugations for the different points of view are different, so the point of view subjects were eventually dropped off except in cases of emphasis.

Example: to go: (ir)
yo voy
tu vas
el va
nosotros vamos
ellos van

every one is different, so they just drop the subject because it is automatically implied.
It becomes:
voy
vas
va
vamos
van

the argument is there. It's implied.

Another thing: I don't understand what you're saying about not being able to identify active voice. If the subject is doing the action in the verb, it's active, right?

As far as the 'they kissed'/'they kissed each other' thing....
other languages deal with this by defining the verb differently in these cases. They call them reflexive verbs. In english we have verbs like to wash that can either be done by the subject to something else, or back on the subject itself. In other languages, if it's done back on the subject, its reflexive, and they indicate this in the infinitive form of the verb as well as the conjugated form.
Example (french):
to wash= laver (infinitive)
to wash oneself= se laver (infinitive)
I wash= je lave
I wash myself= je me lave

it's the same in most other languages, but I don't like that method. I think it is just fine if the...(myself, each other, etc)... is just used as an object. The object happens to be the same thing as the subject in reality but, grammatically, it's still just an object, which makes the verb transitive, no more.

ok, not going in to the next part, too tired, been at this post (no pun) too long. I do want to say one last thing: I don't see why 'to be' is considered to be used in active voice at all. Should be neither active nor passive. Doesn't the word 'active' imply action?

 

[Fung Koo]

I see what Dawnstorm and The Grammar Team are saying, and from their perspective I can see why they would say I'm off on a tangent.

However, what I'm talking about is a common understanding of "active vs. passive voice." It may be a misunderstanding of the grammatical term, but as a conceptual approach to constructing narrative what I've suggested seems pretty common. And, it's used as a framework to produce pretty clear language that is relatively free of grammatically passive voice by many, many an educator.

Perhaps the correct terminology for what I'm erroneously discussing is something closer to "Strong vs. Weak Rhetorical Voice."

But as a question of cause and effect...

I'm not sure anyone without a fairly significant amount of education in grammar would ever come up with a sentence like: "Bill was bought a car from by me."

That might be a true and valid example of "passive voice" from a grammarian's perspective, but if you don't have sufficient education in grammar to apply the "rules" to produce such a sentence... you never would (certainly not as a native English speaker). That's one of the least comfortable sentences I've ever seen!!!

So I guess this goes back to hippokrene -- are you after Strong vs. Weak Rhetorical Voice, Active vs. Passive Grammatical Voice, both, or neither?

And to Dawnstorm and the Grammar Team -- what would you propose is the best advice to give your average writer (who both fears and loathes grammar) to avoid using the passive voice without really knowing exactly what it is?

Specialist, mechanistic descriptions like what's going on here are of little practical value to anyone but the specialists, eh... you friggin' grammarians... maybe ESL teachers, too... but oy vey...

 

[the mighty pen]

I don't think 'Bill was bought a car from by me' is valid grammatically.
'I bought a car from Bill' would be passively expressed like: 'a car was bought by me.' The object in the active sentence is the car, not Bill.

edit: As for the advice, I would just learn what active and passive voice is, it's not really that complicated. He doesn't get hit by the arrow, the arrow hits him.

 

[tdnewton]

zomg grammar overloads....

 

[Fung Koo]

I don't either, but Dawnstorm wrote it down and he's the resident guru of all things grammatical so it has to be right!!!

 

[the mighty pen]

well, I'd hate to say I was sure, and be wrong, but I'm thinking it was just a mistake is all. It has two prepositions in a row.
edit: Plus, he was turning the first active sentence into a passive one, and that would have been the wrong passive form.

 

[Dawnstorm]

However, what I'm talking about is a common understanding of "active vs. passive voice." It may be a misunderstanding of the grammatical term, but as a conceptual approach to constructing narrative what I've suggested seems pretty common. And, it's used as a framework to produce pretty clear language that is relatively free of grammatically passive voice by many, many an educator.

Perhaps the correct terminology for what I'm erroneously discussing is something closer to "Strong vs. Weak Rhetorical Voice."

That sounds about right. You're talking about rhetorics, not grammar.

The problem is that many people who talk about rhetorics think they're talking about grammar - which creats the strange effect that the passive voice is considered one of the markers of a passive voice.

Terminological nightmare.

I don't think 'Bill was bought a car from by me' is valid grammatically.

I don't either, but Dawnstorm wrote it down and he's the resident guru of all things grammatical so it has to be right!!!

Wait a minute. It doesn't work like that.

First, I agree that "Bill was bought a car from by me," is... unusual. I do think, though, that the unagented passive, "Bill was bought a car from," sounds better. But in any case, it's usage that matters. And usage always occurs in context.

However, the following argument doesn't hold water:

'I bought a car from Bill' would be passively expressed like: 'a car was bought by me.' The object in the active sentence is the car, not Bill.

There are many types of object, and all have the potential to become the subject of a passive verb.

1. The simplest form is the direct object:

to buy:

I buy a car. --> A car is bought (by me).

2. Next is the indirect object:

I give you a present. --> You are given a present.

(Direct object: A present was given (to) you. [The to is necessary in formal situations, I think].)

3. Then there's the special case of prepositional verbs:

I depend on Joe. --> Joe can be depended on.

Here, the preposition gets tagged onto the participle.

4. Finally, it's possible to make the object of a preposition the subject of a sentence and render the verb into the passive voice, even though the prepostition is not an argument of the verb.

I've slept in this bed. ---> This bed has been slept in.

These things occur with some regularity, though they're not exactly frequent. And it's not clear what determines acceptability for these passives. There are plenty on papers on this; this is exactly the sort of topic that fascinates linguists. And, yes, these things get produced spontaneously by nativespeakers. On a linguistics blog someone once reported that his son produced something along these lines:

This bowl wasn't eaten any cereals out of.​

I'll see if I can track down the blog entry. It's a fun read (as long as you find grammar fun ).

Note that this sort of thing is probably not very common, and it's acceptability is debatable. But it is grammatically intellegible: you do understand the intended meaning. The objections are primarily aesthetic.

about the Italian 'piove'- It has an argument, it's just implied.

It's true that in romance languages you can leave out the pronouns and just use the words. "Ti amo," means "I love you," but only the second argument is expressed. The "I" is implied in the ending -o. You're right that far.

However, for "Piove" there is literally nothing that you could add. There is no argument implied. There's nobody who does the raining. The verb doesn't even conjugate. You can't say, "Piovo" ("I rain.") for example. This is literally a self-sufficient, process centered verb. It has no argument. I'm not an expert in romance linguistics, though, so perhaps there are papers who argue for an implied argument (ack: argue - argument, yet two different meanings...) out there. I'd be interested to see them.

Another thing: I don't understand what you're saying about not being able to identify active voice. If the subject is doing the action in the verb, it's active, right?

Well, in theory yes. But this puts us into the territory of semantics rather than syntax. Remember when NickeeCoco said that English has no "middle voice"? Well, how do we know? There is no particular verb form for the middle voice, so much is true. But the same is true for the active voice.

Take for example this triade:

1. Amazon sold 1000 copies of my book.

2. 1000 copies of my book were sold.

3. My book sold 1000 copies.

The first one's clearly active voice. I frame Amazon as the agent who does the selling, and put it into the subject slot. Easy to identify, right?

Next one is the passive voice: Now the book's the subject. The book's also the patient, so it's passive voice right?

Next we move on to three. The book's the subject. Does the book do any selling? No, it's the item that moves not the agent that sells. Passive voice. Right? Easy. But wait! No. It's "sold" not "was sold".

What's going on here? Some people call this the English Middle Voice. Looks like "active voice" but behaves semantically like the passive voice.

It's a mess once you think about it. Out of context, "was sold" is clearly passive voice. But "sold" is not clearly active voice. It could as well be the "middle voice". Arguing through semantics doesn't really help. There simply is no clear and unambiguos evidence that "sold" is the active voice form of the verb. What happens is this: you have a default form, and then you have a form that deviates from the default, and this form corresponds with the passive voice. The default form, however, corresponds to many different potential voices:

Active voice: I sold the book.
Middle voice: The book sold many copies.
Reciprocal voice: They kissed.

And so on.

The semantic argument is exactly what causes me to say there is no single form - analogous to the passive constructions - that express the active voice.

it's the same in most other languages, but I don't like that method. I think it is just fine if the...(myself, each other, etc)... is just used as an object. The object happens to be the same thing as the subject in reality but, grammatically, it's still just an object, which makes the verb transitive, no more.

You're right about that. "They kissed each other," has "each other" as an object and is a straight forward transitive verb. But "They kissed," has no object at all. In addition, it's not like "They ate," in that the object is merely implied. "They kissed," doesn't mean merely that they were both engaged in the act of kissing; it means that they are kissing "each other". Other words that work like this one: "collide", "meet"...

This is not reflexive, btw. Reflexive would be "They kissed themselves." And you're right, "I washed in the sink this morning," could easily be analysed as a "reflexive voice" for that reason. The "reciprocal voice" would be more complex, as it involves I do this to you, and you do this to me. It involves a social perspective.

The thing is this: if we're merely arguing from semantics without anchoring this in the concrete verb form, we have a voice-explosion. Suddenly we can have many, many voices. See the problem?

All this goes way beyond normal grammar education really. But it does help explain the confusion about Strunk's passage. He had a concept of "active voice" that hippokrene didn't share, and he failed to define his terms, so we're really left guessing from the examples he provides. As I said before, if we assume that Strunk considered every verb that is not in the passive voice as being in the active voice, these examples don't make much sense. But if we consider that Strunk thinks forms of "to be" (and other linking verbs, perhaps) are not in the active voice (and neither in the passive voice) then his advice becomes a bit more tangible. I'd like to claim he's wrong, but I really don't think he is here. He's just expressing himself badly.

And to Dawnstorm and the Grammar Team -- what would you propose is the best advice to give your average writer (who both fears and loathes grammar) to avoid using the passive voice without really knowing exactly what it is?

Well, my advice is easy. Don't try to avoid the passive voice. If it wasn't useful it wouldn't exist. All the bad things said about the passive voice are side-effects of other issues (wordiness, vaguenes...). Deal with those issues instead.

There's! Nothing! Wrong! With! The! Passive! Voice!

 

[Fung Koo]

Well, my advice is easy. Don't try to avoid the passive voice. If it wasn't useful it wouldn't exist. All the bad things said about the passive voice are side-effects of other issues (wordiness, vaguenes...). Deal with those issues instead.

So you're saying that the passive voice is a side effect of poor rhetoric...

 

[hippokrene]

So I guess this goes back to hippokrene -- are you after Strong vs. Weak Rhetorical Voice, Active vs. Passive Grammatical Voice, both, or neither?

It was a grammatical question.

Style and rhetoric are important, but not for this thread.