Quick & dirty rule, or law?

[LOG]

Bit of background first, I think.

Here's the sentence:

My eyes were alerted open when the stretcher was briskly lifted and placed onto a gurney, which then began to roll.

I look at it, and I want to give "alerted" a subject, I want something to be doing the alerting, because right now I'm pretty sure neither the stretcher or the gurney are doing it. Logically they're the reason, but they don't seem to be doing so on a grammatical level.
Alerted seems transitive to me--it needs to have something doing it to something else (agent acting on patient, subject and object, etc.)
My partner disagrees, he believes that alerted is intransitive and can stand as is.
To quote him:

I disagree that the passive voice is always transitive. In fact, the opposite is true: the passive voice is always intransitive.

In valency, the definition of an intransitive verb is that it takes exactly one argument: the subject. By contrast, the definition of a transitive verb is that it takes exactly two arguments: the subject and an object.

A passive [voice] verb cannot take a direct object; it is grammatically incorrect.

My main doubt stems from how although the definition of alerted--to have someone be notified or warned--seems like it would require at least two nouns at work, I don't believe that language and grammar always mesh that way.

So I suppose the ultimate problem is that I believe passive voice will always have transitive verbs, while he believes that passive voice always has intransitive verbs.

What I'm curious about though, is if either of those ideas is correct. Is the concept that passive voice always contains either only transitive or intransitive verbs a kind of quick & dirty rule, or is it an actual law of the English language?

ETA: Unless we're both off mark and this sentence is actually active voice . . . because I think sometimes the subject can look like an object in active voice because it's experiencing the action that it's doing . . . now I think I'm just confusing myself.

[Kevin Nelson]

Based on the way I was taught, I would agree with you that verbs in the passive voice must be transitive. Your partner is using a definition according to which a transitive verb takes two arguments. The definition I learned was more along the lines of "a transitive verb takes two arguments provided it is in the active voice."

But I actually think that's just a semantic point about the meaning of the word "transitive." I don't think it's the ultimate problem for the sentence you're worrying about. The sentence, as it now stands, is certainly in the passive voice. So if you want to say what is doing the alerting, you would add some phrase starting with "by." For example, the sentence could turn into something like the following:

"My eyes were alerted open by a sudden movement when the stretcher was briskly lifted and placed onto a gurney, which then began to roll."

Personally, I would like the sentence far better if it were further rewritten to make it active, or if it were split in two. Also, it sounds strange to me that your eyes could be alerted, much less "alerted open." To me, it is a person that gets alerted. Maybe you're trying to be metaphorical here; if so, the metaphor doesn't quite work for me personally. If I were rewriting this sentence, I think I'd change it to the following:

"A clattering noise startled me and I opened my eyes. The stretcher was being lifted onto the gurney, which was then quickly rolled away."

Obviously I'm not saying you have to rewrite it like that, but it's something you could think about.

[F.E.]

Well, I'd think that "grammar" is just a formal-sounding way of talking about what it is that makes a specific sentence good or bad or so-so.

My eyes were alerted open when the stretcher was briskly lifted and placed onto a gurney, which then began to roll.

The big issue here, imo, is that you're probably not using the verb ALERT quite the way that you probably intended. For instance, these below examples are some usually ways of using the verb ALERT.

Active voice versions: (object is bolded)

A.1. My boss alerted me to an immediate danger.
B.1. I alerted him to the dangers of feeding tigers out of one's hand.
C.1. The sound of bullets whizzing past my head alerted me to a possible problem.

Passive voice versions: (subject is bolded)

A.2.1 I was alerted to an immediate danger by my boss.
A.2.2. I was alerted to an immediate danger.
B.2.1. He was alerted by me to the dangers of feeding tigers out of one's hand.
B.2.2. He was alerted to the dangers of feeding tigers out of one's hand.
C.2.1. I was alerted to a possible problem by the sound of bullets whizzing past my head.
C.2.2. I was alerted to a possible problem.

Notice that "people" seem to be involved. In the active voice versions, a "person" is the object of the verb ALERT.

In the passive voice versions, the grammatical subject is a "person". And the passive voice's subject is equivalent to the active voice's object (both of which are bolded in the above examples).

So, let's look at the verb ALERT. It seems, in the active voice versions, that in clauses headed by the verb ALERT, that the verb has two complements: one complement is an "object", and the second complement is a prepositional phrase (PP). That PP seems to be easily/commonly headed by the preposition to. And that the object is a sort of "person" (or animal or sentient being).

When the passive voice versions are looked at, we see that the "semantic object" (of the active voice version) is now the subject, and so, that subject is a "sentient being", more or less. And also, that the PP which is headed by the preposition to is also there, basically the same in both active voice and passive voice versions.

(Though there are some exceptions, w.r.t. having a "to" PP: He alerted the police. The police were alerted.)


So let's look at your sentence again:

• My eyes were alerted open when the stretcher was briskly lifted and placed onto a gurney, which then began to roll.

There are problems with that sentence (which happens to be in passive voice):

• It is missing a PP that is headed by the preposition to. (Usually that "to" PP is there, but not always.)
• The subject of your passive voice sentence is "My eyes", which is not a "sentient being" (not something that could be alerted to danger).

And besides that, something doesn't get "alerted open", imo. I'm thinking that something alerted you so that you ended up opening your eyes. Or something like that. (One possibility: "I awoke to the sound/sight of xxxx")
.
.
As to the grammatical discussion related to the questions that you brought up ... the Olympics are on, and if/when there's time or something, I'll try to squeeze some posts in.
.
.
Edited-to-add: The previous poster noticed the same problems with your original sentence.

[Ketzel]

The main problem is that the verb "to alert" means to warn, or to advise. Something can alert [warn, advise] you to open your eyes, but your eyes can't be warned or advised open.

[LOG]

Yeah, I've noticed the same issue with eyes being "alerted." It seems strange, but language, especially in writing, often uses phrases that are nonsensical when taken literally. I wasn't sure how hard to come down on it for that, if at all.

[F.E.]

Let me do some quick "answers":

I disagree that the passive voice is always transitive. (Some/many passive clauses are transitive clauses; but usually, most passive clauses are intransitive clauses--the reasoning being that not too many active voice clauses have two objects, when compared to the number of active voice clauses that have only one object.)
In fact, the opposite is true: the passive voice is always intransitive.
(Er, no. It is not true that a passive clause must be an intransitive clause.)

In valency, the definition of an intransitive verb is that it takes exactly one argument: the subject. By contrast, the definition of a transitive verb is that it takes exactly two arguments: the subject and an object.
(That whole paragraph is rather confusing, imo. In the grammar(s) that I'm sorta following: intransitive means the clause/verb has no object; valency means the number of complements that the head verb has, which also includes counting the external complement which is known as "subject".)

A passive [voice] verb cannot take a direct object; it is grammatically incorrect.
(Er, no. A passive voice clause can have a direct object, especially if the corresponding active voice version had two objects.)

Okay. Let me have an attempt at this stuff. ... (Though, some of my comments might be a bit inaccurate or even wrong, maybe. ...)

Here is an "active voice" clause, where the clause is transitive, and where the clause has two objects (indirect object and direct object):

• Tom threw Jill the ball as hard as he could.

.
Objects are:

1. Jill
2. the ball

.
That clause has a valency of four, where the four complements are:

1. Tom [the external complement, i.e. the grammatical subject]
2. Jill
3. the ball
4. as hard as he could

The complements "Jill" and "the ball" happen to be objects in this sentence, and both are internal complements. Internal complements are what we usually refer to as "complements" when talking about clauses or head verbs--but the subject is also a sort of complement, and it is referred to in a more exact way as an "external complement" in order to differentiate it from the typical complements.

In the above example, the phrase "as hard as he could" might be considered by many to actually be an adjunct (instead of as a complement), but let's kinda let that slide here in this discussion in order to make the overall post simpler.
.
Okay, now let's look at passive voice sentences. I'll first simplify the above active voice sentence for this.

1. Tom threw Jill the ball. -- [active voice. transitive with 2 objects.]
2. Jill was thrown the ball. -- [passive voice. transitive with 1 object.]
3. The ball was thrown. -- [passive voice. intransitive.]

Notice that in order to create a corresponding passive voice version, one of the objects in the original active-voice clause was moved into the subject slot of the passive-voice clause.

So if the active-voice clause only had one object to begin with, then that must mean that the corresponding passive-voice clause will be intransitive.

Transitive means that the clause contains at least one object. Transitive clause, transitive verb, transitive--those three phrases are basically the same in meaning.

Intransitive means that the clause contains no object.

So what is an "object"? Er, it's a subset of noun phrases (a noun phrase can also be just a mere noun, or a phrase headed by a pronoun) where that noun phrase also passes a set of criteria for being an "object"--more or less.

Well, anyway, I hope this post is helpful for some. And the Olympics is back on ...

[blacbird]

It's not really a grammar issue. It's just clumsy writing. "My eyes were alerted open" is just plain bad awful terrible. The sentence begs for rewriting. The important action isn't about the eyes, or whatever they did, it's the stretcher being lifted. Start there.

caw

[Bufty]

This sentence, regardless of any grammar issue, - had I written it - would be screaming at me to be rewritten for flow and clarity. It's dreadful.

[Fallen]

Originally Posted by LOG

Is the concept that passive voice always contains either only transitive or intransitive verbs a kind of quick & dirty rule, or is it an actual law of the English language?

No, it's not a rule: not all transitive verbs can form a passive: (even though I've looked at it myself).

Take a look at 'resembles'.

The man resembled a stick insect.

Resembles is transitive here. Switch it around, can you use resemble in any passive construction?

The man was resembled by a stick insect...

Just isn't grammatically correct on any level.

There are a good proportion of transitive verbs that can be formed into passive, but because there are also transitive ones that can't, I'd avoid it as a rule (it's not 100% accurate).

On the sentence itself, I'd agree with blackbird and Buft.

I cracked an eye open when the stretcher... (you're letting the reader infer one action caused the other)

[shadowwalker]

Originally Posted by blacbird

It's not really a grammar issue. It's just clumsy writing. "My eyes were alerted open" is just plain bad awful terrible. The sentence begs for rewriting. The important action isn't about the eyes, or whatever they did, it's the stretcher being lifted. Start there.

caw

Agreed! This is why I'm glad I learned and promptly forgot all the fancy-schmancy grammar stuff (transitive or intransitive verbs, my eye). Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees...

[jaksen]

Originally Posted by Bufty

This sentence, regardless of any grammar issue, - had I written it - would be screaming at me to be rewritten for flow and clarity. It's dreadful.

And blacbird, too.

Regardless of the mechanics or grammar or whatever, it's just so hard to read or understand.

[Rufus Coppertop]

Originally Posted by LOG

I wasn't sure how hard to come down on it for that, if at all.

I'd suggest coming down on it like a giant sledgehammer swung by Godzilla on amphetamines in a really bad mood, after a month on steroids, working at a gymnasium.

[Susan Littlefield]

Yeah, I agree that is a horrible sentence. Say what you mean to say: when lifted onto the gurney you woke up.

[blacbird]

I got to thinking further about this thread, curious as to why it fascinated me so, and it just hit me:

The problem with the example sentence is a larger one than just stylistic clumsiness or grammatical accuracy. It doesn't make sense, physically. It's a classic example of trying to describe something that just doesn't work, and a big POV issue.

I've been unconscious, from a sporting accident, and also anesthetized in surgery. You don't recover consciousness in those events with any level of analytical observation. You're writing a first-person narrative. It's important that your narrator relate experiences reflecting reality.

In other words, there's no way you'd wake up and understand that it was a stretcher being lifted that woke you up. The first thing you'd remember, consciously, might be being jostled, moved. You wouldn't know why, or how. Those more interpretive observations would only come later.

Unconsciousness, either from accident or anesthesia, isn't sleep. There's no sense of time passage. First you are experience one thing, and then another quite disconnected and illogical thing. You won't know why, right away.

My (ridiculous and silly) concussion accident story goes like this, in my pure observation recollection:

About 40 years ago, right after I got out of the Army and returned to college, I was out on a warm summer night with a couple of friends, in a park near my apartment, throwing around a frisbee. I'd had a couple, (defined with some lack of precision) of beers. But I was also a track athlete, slim, fit . . . invulnerable. One of my friends sailed the frisbee off into the night. It was a white frisbee, easily seen, and I ran back and to my left, tracking its flight, anticipating its curve back to where I could catch it, and leaped for it.

Then time slowed way down.

The

tree

was

right

there

six

inches

in

front

of

my

face.

This

was

going

to

hurt

bad

and

I

couldn't

do

a

damn

thing

about

it.





Right in front of my face my hands were covered with blood. My friends got me to the emergency room, somehow, and I don't remember any of that. The next thing I do remember is telling the doc I thought I had broken my nose, and him telling me, yes, he thought that, too.

That's about the amount of detail a person will remember, in real time, in an incident like that. The entire idea of being wakened by a stretcher being lifted, and recognizing that's what's happening, strikes me as ridiculous, based on my own experiences.

And also probably an unnecessary detail in your narrative.

caw

[Fallen]

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

Agreed! This is why I'm glad I learned and promptly forgot all the fancy-schmancy grammar stuff (transitive or intransitive verbs, my eye). Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees...

Sometimes it's easier to forget if you're struggling, yes, and certainly if you're in a spot where you can't see the woods for the trees. Saying that, there's nowt wrong with somebody else trying to make their way through it; some manage to do balance both.

[shadowwalker]

Originally Posted by Fallen

Sometimes it's easier to forget if you're struggling, yes, and certainly if you're in a spot where you can't see the woods for the trees. Saying that, there's nowt wrong with somebody else trying to make their way through it; some manage to do balance both.

There's nothing wrong with trying to manage both. However, I've seen so many writers getting into long drawn-out discussions about the intricacies of grammar - and they do indeed miss the forest. Often. It would be far better, IMHO, to file this stuff deep into their "writer brain" (where it only rarely escapes) and learn to listen to the words and phrases instead of trying to dissect them.

[Rufus Coppertop]

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

Agreed! This is why I'm glad I learned and promptly forgot all the fancy-schmancy grammar stuff (transitive or intransitive verbs, my eye). Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees...

I think Blacbird's right. It's not a grammar issue in the OP at all.

Nevertheless, a knowledge of grammar is as useful to a writer as a knowledge of tonal harmony is to a composer. Just as melodies are formed from notes, phrases are formed from words. To stretch the sylvan metaphor a bit, seeing the forest is useful. Being able to look at individual trees and how they relate to form that forest is also useful. Too useful to be casually dismissed.

I think you're right though, in your opinion about listening to the words and phrases instead of trying to dissect them. Most of the time, listening is all that we really to do.

[ArtsyAmy]

I don't know if I could add anything useful about the transitive/intransitive business, but if you're interested in more sentence-specific input... I can say that the word "alerted" made me pause mid-sentence, wondering if something didn't sound right. You know--that kind of pausing that we want to avoid causing readers to do--disturbs the flow of the story and maybe they won't keep reading after the pause. I think I first thought it didn't work, then thought that perhaps your wording provided a fresh take. But that pause thing...nope, not worth it--I'd change the wording.

Add to the above what blacbird said about having a POV issue. I've been unconscious before, and I agree: I don't think your character would be aware that he wakened due to the jostling--there's just not that awareness, at least there wasn't in my experiences. And your character isn't just aware of jostling. The stretcher was lifted. The stretcher was placed on a gurney. The gurney began to move. That's more than I think a person who just regained consciousness would be able to realize, remember, and report.

After writing the above I got to thinking whether eyes could be alerted open if the person had been merely sleeping--not unconscious. (Because a stretcher is involved, I've been assuming your character was unconscious.) Seems to me that either eyes are never alerted--it's the brain that gets alerted, or eyes are always alerted when they open (alerted by the brain, that is--not alerted by something external such as the person being jostled). I would re-work that part of your story. There's probably a quick-fix.

[Amory]

Originally Posted by ArtsyAmy

Seems to me that either eyes are never alerted--it's the brain that gets alerted, or eyes are always alerted when they open (alerted by the brain, that is--not alerted by something external such as the person being jostled). I would re-work that part of your story. There's probably a quick-fix.

tr.v. a·lert·ed, a·lert·ing, a·lerts To notify of approaching danger or action; warn

You simply can't alert something without any mental processing capabilities open. You could alert an inanimate object to open, though that still sounds weird because it implies the inanimate object can think ("I alerted the door to open." It works, because the door might be controlled by a computer, but to make real sense you must include the "thinking" Middle Man, aka "I alerted the computer to open the door.").

One easy way to see if something's placement in a sentence works is to insert other words and see if any of THOSE work.

Step One:

Try using a similar action to the thing that the noun was alerted to do:
My eyes were alerted open.
My leg was alerted jump.
My neck was alerted ache.
My hand was alerted hurt.
VERSUS
My synapses were alerted to open my eyes.
My brain was alerted to make my leg jump.
My pain sensors were alerted that my neck ached.
My brain was alerted that my hand hurt.)
(Eyes cannot be alerted... they do not think or compute in any way. Using these examples, you can tell that you need to include the thinking "Middle Man," such as the brain or synapses.)

Step 2:

Try using verbs that also imply a thinking human-like action (like "alerted" does) to replace "alerted":
My eyes were influenced open.
My eyes were encouraged open.
My eyes were informed open.
My eyes were begged open.
VERSUS
My eyes were pried open. (This sentence works because it does not imply that the eyes had the knowledge they were being pried open. "My eyes were alerted open." implies that the eyes knew, in their eye-ful minds, that they were opening. In turn, none of the four sentences above would work at all unless you added an explanation like "My eyes were encouraged to open by the prying fingers of the doctor." Once again, there is a need for a thinking Middle Man.)


I know all this has already been said, however I often tell students to try these kind of "tests" if they aren't sure their sentences are grammatically correct. It's easier than remembering a bunch of fancy grammar words.

[Fallen]

I'd simply opt for wandering body parts:

Eyes rolled over in his direction (marbles)
His head dropped (on the floor?)
Eyes were alerted open (clever little eyes, being so open to alertness)

Quick fix would be to add a human agent:

He forced an eye open as
A creak alerted him to...and he forced an eye...

Comes down to referential material, or what readers associate to certain words. For instance, 'alerted' is awkward because it doesn't fit with what readers know about eyes. Eyes can 'react' (to light etc), and readers know that. So alerted just sits a little funny, IMHO

[F.E.]

A very, very old joke: Message on a billboard,

Be a lert. Your country needs more lerts.

[Fallen]

Originally Posted by F.E.

A very, very old joke: Message on a billboard,

Be a lert. Your country needs more lerts.

I've got that in a text book somewhere.