Talk:English passive voice

Archives

The book sold 2 million copies?[edit]

Hi, can you please clarify if the headline sentence in passive? Or pseudopassive? I didn't find any good examples similar to this one. Apparently book cannot sell itself so it is sold and the correct usage would be - 2 million copies of the book were sold. But still it is widely used in this reverse order? What kind of grammar is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.132.179.152 (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of covered in the article: see the section on the middle voice. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this article's Misuse of the term section as I just edited it. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on English passive voice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081119072919/http://bartleby.com/68/5/6405.html to http://www.bartleby.com/68/5/6405.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on English passive voice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 4 doesn't seem to encourage the use of passive voice[edit]

Hi All,

Reference 4 doesn't actually seem to encourage the use of passive voice as suggested by the article. It appears to allow an editor to require the use of passive voice, but it also allows an editor to require the use of active voice.Mgearmail (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the reference does support the point for which it is cited, which is that some publications' style sheets encourage the use of passive voice. Admittedly, it isn't great support for that; it's just a template that a publication can use for this purpose. Ideally we would want better support for this point. John M Baker (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between US and British English[edit]

Despite Orwell's criticism of the passive voice, it is not really seen as an 'bad thing' in British English; rather the use of the passive is considered a matter of style. In particular, in the writing of formal reports it is often preferred on grounds of economy - because you don't have to keep mentioning the agent. It really is quite a shock to many British writers when their grammar checker starts criticising use of the passive voice. Stub Mandrel (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be described as a difference between British and American English (i.e. usage). There might be, for instance:

a discrepancy between the advice given and actual usage by the same author (especially Orwell)
lack of knowledge about what the passive voice is
a difference between (a) empirically based statements by linguists and (b) prescriptive recommendations based on personal preference
a difference in the prevalence of so-called style or grammar guides that recommend avoidance of the passive
greater trust in badly written and often (understandably) misunderstood advice on the use of the passive voice
over-generalization based on stupid examples like "My first visit to Boston will always be remembered by me" (rather than stupid examples like "Somebody assassinated Kennedy in 1963").

But I don't know if we have enough to state that there is a difference between British and American prescriptivists or the faith in such prescriptivists in Britain and America, respectively.

--Boson (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double passives agents[edit]

A few lines should be added regarding the agents of double passive sentences --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

The Distinction between passive voice and participial adjective section is rife with original research that contains an ipse dixit (e.g. "A distinction is made between [passive voice] and a superficially similar construction where a word with the form of a past participle is used as predicative adjective") and spurious analysis (e.g. "'I am excited' is not passive voice"). In omitting the operation of reflexivity (grammar), the given analysis creates a false dilemma between passive voice (i.e. entailing a past participle) and a past participle used as predicative adjective. For now, I'm just sayin.' I'm disinclined to fix the section by interpolating my own linguistic theory and terminology. Also, I'm loath to delete the section because it does contain some observations that might stimulate interest. I just hope unsuspecting readers avoid relying on this section as having been fully thought out, much less as linguistic gospel. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verb "omit"[edit]

Fowler reads

Ernest Gowers noted “In legal or quasi-legal language this construction may sometimes be useful and unexceptionable: Diplomatic privilege applies only to such things as are omitted to be done in the course of a person’s official duties. / Motion made: that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question” (FMEU2 at 139). 

But these are of a different kind from are sought to be included and are attempted to be refuted, which can be easily remedied by recasting.

--Backinstadiums (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Masks are to be worn"[edit]

The lede image strikes me as less than ideal. It entangles the generic passive construction with the specific "to be to" construction, and even though the latter is clearly in general usage, it can still be a bit tricky to pin down grammatically. So this introduces quite a complication right off the bat, and quite an unneeded one at that.

- 2A02:560:42D2:CE00:C024:ABB2:9DFA:B7EB (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omission from article[edit]

This article doesn't mention the passive voice construct as implicit in a so-called reduced relative clause, e.g., "The investigators never found the weapon (that was) used in the crime." I'd edit the article accordingly except I'm not a fan of the traditional terms used in the cites that are available to identify this phenomenon. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most remarkable page 66 of Anja Wanner's Deconstructing the English Passive[edit]

This version (23 Sep '21) of the article has a single reference to page 66 of Wanner's Deconstructing the English Passive (and none to any other page(s) of that book, or to the book as a whole).

The single reference comes attached to the end of, and I quote:

English allows a number of passive constructions which are not possible in many of the other languages with similar passive formation. These include promotion of an indirect object to subject (as in Tom was given a bag) and promotion of the complement of a preposition (as in Sue was operated on, leaving a stranded preposition).

In this respect, the article was, in autumn 2021, as it had been nine years earlier.

In the following edit (7 Dec '21), one-time editor "Drofnej" added a considerable amount of text, with 27 additional references to the same one page of Wanner's Deconstructing the English Passive.

I haven't been able to see a copy of that book, but am amazed by the amount of material that, "Drofnej" claimed, Wanner packed into a single page therein.

Later that day, Kent Dominic reverted Drofnej's edit, with the edit summary "Deleted this (largely) single-source essay (with possible WP:COI / WP:ADVOCACY issues) re Wanner, Anja".

Three days later, Botterweg14 reverted Kent Dominic's reversion, with the edit summary "text looks decent + should be easy to add more sources if really necessary + don't see basis of COI issue". (The reversion to Drofnej's version was precise.)

Botterweg, it should be easy to remove what I'd wildly guess are 27 bogus references to page 66 of Wanner's book. Any objection to my removal of them? Addition of references to genuine sources -- or anyway addition to those parts of this rather ramshackle article that are accurate and merit retention -- would indeed be necessary. You say this should be easy; would you care to make a start? -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection! In fact, good catch! Unfortunately, de-ramshackling the section would take more time than I have at the moment, so I defer to your judgment here. Botterweg14 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Phase 1 now effected. Botterweg14, doing this delayed my lunch, and for me, that is serious. You could start at deramshackling this article. (To dip your toes in, try finding the string bartleby within the article, and fixing that oddity.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would share my lunch with you, but unfortunately that goes beyond my wikimarkup skills! Botterweg14 (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lead cite + usage discrepancy[edit]

Kent Dominic, I suppose I do not quite understand which link in the chain I am missing: are you saying the lead is making a different claim than the body? Here is the pertinent excerpt from the source, quickly copied as to lose markup:

In scientific writing the passive voice is much more
frequent than in ordinary expository or imaginative prose: e.g. the cultures were
fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde rather than I/we fixed the cultures with [etc.];
similarly, when DNA molecules are placed on a gel; an electron is scattered once
every 1,000 molecules. In ordinary prose true passives are relatively uncommon
—usually not more than two on an average page of a book. In scientific work
they are a main constituent even though concerted attempts have been made to
encourage scientists to use the passive less, and, as reported in the Cambridge
Guide to English Usage (2004), research showed that a large group of
professionals surveyed preferred technical writing with a lower density of
passive forms.

Remsense留 22:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying merely that despite how you and I might agree that "In general, the passive voice is used less often than the active voice in English, but frequency varies according to the writer's style and the field being written for", that statement requires a WP:CITE. Without a cite, it constitutes original research. The statement differs from the correctly cited assertion that "Use of the passive is more prevalent in scientific writing.^[1]". Specifically, Fowler doesen't say the passive voice is used less often than the active voice in English. Fowler's statement that passive is more prevalent in scientific writing may be an asertion of the field in which the passive is most prevalent, not an proposition about how often the passive voice is used in general vis-a-vis the frequency of active voice in English. Such a generalization is unfounded and unsourced despite how it might be true. We need to specify a source as a proper cite for that proposition. Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Dominic, does summarizing In ordinary prose true passives are relatively uncommon—usually not more than two on an average page of a book. as such really constitute original research in your mind? Remsense留 23:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, summarizing that proposition, without a cite, constitutes OR. Quoting that proposition, without attribution, constitutes plagiarism. Render it either as, e.g., (1)According to Reliable Source ABC, true passives are relatively uncommon in ordinary prose — usually not more than two on an average page of a book or (2) Unlike active voice, true passives are relatively uncommon in ordinary prose — usually not more than two on an average page of a book ^{Cited source}. Then it doesn't matter whether there's agreement with the underlying proposition; Wikipedia is merely reporting what a published source has alleged. Without the cite, it appears that the proposition's basis is founded on a Wikipedia editor's behalf, which is a no-no.

To be clear, the source at hand descibes only passives in writing. Your edit isn't similarly limited. You wrote, "In general, the passive voice is used less often than the active voice in English..." Even if our own experience leads us to believe passives are even less common in speech than in writing, we can't make such a pronouncement in Wikipedia unless we have a published source to cite as foundation. I probably wouldn't have flagged your error if had been rendered as, e.g., "In writing, the passive voice is used less often than the active voice in English..." or "The passive voice is used less often than the active voice in English writing..." Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added frequencies, so you can stop your edit war. Brett (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brett, I apologize if my behavior has been disruptive. Kent Dominic, thank you for the elaboration. Remsense留 23:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brett, your contribution to the article is helpful, but it doesn't address the In general overstatement (versus in writing) that Remsense interpolated. Somewhere in the recesses of my brain I recall reading a published source that confirms that generalzation. Yet, without noting such a cite in the article, the generalization remains OR. Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The data includes conversation, as well as news, which is a mixture of scripted and non-scripted text. Is that not general? Brett (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the data explicitly indicate that includes conversation? Sorry if I'm missing it. Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^Nevermind. Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference Fowler, 2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Fowler,_2015-1] Cite error: The named reference Fowler, 2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]