How to Identify Passive Voice - picture
- Thread starter Darron
- Start date
I agree it isn't a perfect system, though "from zombies" is an alternate there, but it catches a lot of sentences.
The use of the word "by" isn't always a signifier of passive voice. But it often is, in the construction "X was done to by Y". That happens often enough in my first drafts that I keep "by" on my list of words and phrases to search for in the first editing pass. I don't alter every such occurrence; sometimes the passive construction is appropriate. But I do want to flag every one, and make that determination in the specific context where it occurs. I always find I can alter more than half into a more active form, and save two or three words, every time.
caw
caw
As someone who is ESL, my teachers gave me the rule,
"[form of to be] + [past participle] = passive voice".
I've yet to find an instance where this "definition" (rather, "description") doesn't work. Though it can be argued.
"I am tired" -> "the work tires me (but it isn't relevant what caused my current condition)"
He is gone -> "he went away (but that's just an euphemism to say he's dead)"
"[form of to be] + [past participle] = passive voice".
I've yet to find an instance where this "definition" (rather, "description") doesn't work. Though it can be argued.
"I am tired" -> "the work tires me (but it isn't relevant what caused my current condition)"
He is gone -> "he went away (but that's just an euphemism to say he's dead)"
Well.... that is just completely incorrect. Both 'I am tired' and 'he is gone' are active, not passive. The 'to be' verb in those sentences is simply being used to describe a condition, as indicated by the participle (which is a verb that acts as an adjective). (note that 'is being used' is a passive construction. Also note that 'I am passive' is an ACTIVE construction, ironically)
The verb 'to be' does not cause a sentence to be passive in itself, although it is often used in the construction of a passive sentence. The ONLY thing that causes a sentence to be passive is if the subject of the verb is having the verb done to it rather than doing the verb.
e.g.
The ball was thrown by the boy -> ball is the subject, the verb is being done to it, therefore passive.
The boy threw the ball -> the boy is the subject, he is doing the verb, therefore active.
Time to get a new ESL teacher...
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe it is funny and useful, but it's also crazy and lazy.
It's simpler to learn what makes a sentence active and not passive, as Kallithrix says, and if the subject of your sentence is actively doing the verb action - as opposed to having the action done to it - your sentence is active.
This active/passive never bothers me because the subject of a sentence invariably does the doing. An isolated 'passive' sentence is not dreadful in itself - passive sentences can often be perfectly clear and concise.
The problem arises when one doesn't understand sentence construction, or know the difference between active and passive, and churns out passive sentences through habit rather than choice.
It's simpler to learn what makes a sentence active and not passive, as Kallithrix says, and if the subject of your sentence is actively doing the verb action - as opposed to having the action done to it - your sentence is active.
This active/passive never bothers me because the subject of a sentence invariably does the doing. An isolated 'passive' sentence is not dreadful in itself - passive sentences can often be perfectly clear and concise.
The problem arises when one doesn't understand sentence construction, or know the difference between active and passive, and churns out passive sentences through habit rather than choice.
Last edited:
TheNighSwan
Banned
Another reason why "he is gone" cannot be analysed as a passive is that "go" is an intransitive verb, a verbs that takes no object, and such a verb cannot be passivized by definition.
"I am" > "???I am been"
"I exist" > "???I am existed"
"I am" > "???I am been"
"I exist" > "???I am existed"
Passive is simply not that difficult to identify. If you can't tell passive from active, you lack grammar skills in several areas, which means a trick like this really isn't going to help. You should even have to think about passive. If you have the needed grammar skills, if you understand simple sentence construction, you should write active without even thinking about it.
For that matter, just reading novels and short stories should make writing active automatic. There are times when passive is the right choice for something, but I have to stop, think a minute or two, turn the sentence over in my head two or three times, and then try to write passive.
As Buffy says, the problem is not understanding good sentence construction. A write who struggles with passive does so because he doesn't know how to construct sentences properly. This means he's going to have awkward sentences everywhere, even when active/passive isn't involved. I see this in slush piles constantly.
Tricks won't help you. Avoiding to be verbs completely won't help you, and leads to forced writing. The only thing that can really help is learning what good sentence construction is, and how construction make a sentence active or passive.
The bonus is that you'll also stop writing poorly constructed sentences everywhere else.
For that matter, just reading novels and short stories should make writing active automatic. There are times when passive is the right choice for something, but I have to stop, think a minute or two, turn the sentence over in my head two or three times, and then try to write passive.
As Buffy says, the problem is not understanding good sentence construction. A write who struggles with passive does so because he doesn't know how to construct sentences properly. This means he's going to have awkward sentences everywhere, even when active/passive isn't involved. I see this in slush piles constantly.
Tricks won't help you. Avoiding to be verbs completely won't help you, and leads to forced writing. The only thing that can really help is learning what good sentence construction is, and how construction make a sentence active or passive.
The bonus is that you'll also stop writing poorly constructed sentences everywhere else.
This is a great thread. I'd like to ask a related question.
Given that 'to be' verbs are not always passive (and thank you, Kallithrix, for that excellent explanation), should we still minimize their use if it's not too clunky? Perhaps treat them as though they were adverbs, and put them on automatic probation?
It would be difficult, because was and is are used far more often than adverbs by themselves, let alone all the other forms of to be.
Currently, I've just been trying to minimize them generally when I write, and trying to rephrase when they bother betas or someone in SYW.
Thanks, in advance.
Given that 'to be' verbs are not always passive (and thank you, Kallithrix, for that excellent explanation), should we still minimize their use if it's not too clunky? Perhaps treat them as though they were adverbs, and put them on automatic probation?
It would be difficult, because was and is are used far more often than adverbs by themselves, let alone all the other forms of to be.
Currently, I've just been trying to minimize them generally when I write, and trying to rephrase when they bother betas or someone in SYW.
Thanks, in advance.
Last edited:
The only reason to be conscious about using 'to be' verbs is because they very often introduce an adjective, and this is a classic sign of telling rather than showing.
Telling: He was tired.
Showing: He yawned.
Showing, where it is succinct like in the above example, is nearly always preferable, because it is more visual and interesting than 'character was X' type of telling.
EDIT: I think often people call this style of telling 'passive writing', but that's misapplying the term, grammatically speaking.
They are very common, and often unavoidable, so eliminating them just for the sake of it is not sensible or practical. But if you use them consciously, and after considering alternatives, then you know you are using the construction because it is the best way to convey your meaning.
This seems like a good approach
Last edited by a moderator:
No. No more than you would similarly evaluate the use of any other verb or grammatical form. "To be" is the most commonly applied verb form, in any language I can think of. I just used one in there, did you see that?. I should struggle to replace that with . . . what? In most usages, forms of To be are invisible to the reader . . . crap, I just used another one.
Oh, but wait . . . you yourself used two of them in the material I quoted above.
"Passive voice" is not about use of To be verb forms. It is about transposition of subject and object in a sentence. I continue to be mystified as to why so many people have the idea that To be verb forms are linguistic demons.
caw
Last edited:
Just can't grasp what a passive sentence is. Will try the zombie approach. (I can identify verbs, at least. Yeah!) Thnx for sharing.
ps Would it be okay if I substitute zombie for something less creepy? E.g. elves.
ps Would it be okay if I substitute zombie for something less creepy? E.g. elves.
The zombie approach doesn't work either.
In general the passive voice is simple; the subject is being acted upon: The drum was being beaten by Stan. That sentence turned into the indicative would be: Stan was beating on the drum.
There are times and places for the passive voice, so there is no reason to be concerned, unless you use the passive in excess.
TheNighSwan
Banned
Another way to explain this.
In a transitive verb, there are two elements: an Agent that does the action, and a Patient that is subjected to the action.
The cat (A) eats the mouse (P).
In an active sentence, the agent is the Subject (the element that goes before the verb and determines verbal agreement), while the patient is the Object (the element that goes after the verb).
The cat (A=S) eats the mouse (P=O).
In a passive sentence, the Patient is promoted to Subject, whereas the Agent is demoted to an oblique, optional argument of the verb.
The mouse (P=S) is eaten (by the cat (A)).
The passive voice generally requires a transformation on the verb, using a conjugated form of "be" (or less formally, "get") plus a past participle.
You took the salt > The salt was taken (by you)
I open the door > The door gets opened (by me)
However, some verbs can also take an inherently passive meaning without transformation of that sort, depending on the subject of the verb:
The fire burns > active (the fire is doing the act of burning, the fire burns something)
The book burns > passive (the book is being burned by something)
There are other ways to explain the passive voice; if you don't understand this explanation, the key is just to look for one that better fits you.
In a transitive verb, there are two elements: an Agent that does the action, and a Patient that is subjected to the action.
The cat (A) eats the mouse (P).
In an active sentence, the agent is the Subject (the element that goes before the verb and determines verbal agreement), while the patient is the Object (the element that goes after the verb).
The cat (A=S) eats the mouse (P=O).
In a passive sentence, the Patient is promoted to Subject, whereas the Agent is demoted to an oblique, optional argument of the verb.
The mouse (P=S) is eaten (by the cat (A)).
The passive voice generally requires a transformation on the verb, using a conjugated form of "be" (or less formally, "get") plus a past participle.
You took the salt > The salt was taken (by you)
I open the door > The door gets opened (by me)
However, some verbs can also take an inherently passive meaning without transformation of that sort, depending on the subject of the verb:
The fire burns > active (the fire is doing the act of burning, the fire burns something)
The book burns > passive (the book is being burned by something)
There are other ways to explain the passive voice; if you don't understand this explanation, the key is just to look for one that better fits you.
Then read and re-read the previous sixteen posts until you do grasp it. It isn't rocket science, Ken.
I killed George - is an active sentence because the subject I is doing the killing.
George was killed by me - is a passive sentence because the subject George isn't doing anything.
I killed George - is an active sentence because the subject I is doing the killing.
George was killed by me - is a passive sentence because the subject George isn't doing anything.
Last edited:
TheNighSwan
Banned
I'd wager it accomplishes more toward that goal than your complaining rudely about your inability to understand detailed grammatical explanations.
Last edited:
Or: It was wagered by Swan that Ken was better educated by a load of detailed grammatical humph than by Bufty's rude and complaining alternate explanation.
I'm waiting for three followup events:
(1) Someone will say the sentence above is passive because "was" is used twice.
(2) Someone else will say the sentence is too long and needs a comma somewhere for a pause.
(3) "Turkeys" are more seasonal this month than either zombies or elves.
Last edited:
Thanks. The additional explanations helped.
So it seems like passive sentences are the reverse of how a sentence would usually read, though not always, and that the verb to be is an indication that a sentence may be passive.
Will consider the matter more and try to understand it from a grammatical standpoint, with subjects and objects.
ps Is there a way to write a passive version of Jane went to the store ?
The store was went to by Jane. (Maybe some sentences can only be active without major rewrites?)
So it seems like passive sentences are the reverse of how a sentence would usually read, though not always, and that the verb to be is an indication that a sentence may be passive.
Will consider the matter more and try to understand it from a grammatical standpoint, with subjects and objects.
ps Is there a way to write a passive version of Jane went to the store ?
The store was went to by Jane. (Maybe some sentences can only be active without major rewrites?)
Last edited: