Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Mar 16, 2014 10:35:13 GMT 5.5
Last week a young colleague asked me an English Grammar question. That query had circulated around in her state for quite some time before it traveled a long distance and reached me. It seems the same errors repeated around unabated and unremittingly made her doubt her own grammatical knowledge as an MA in English. She asked, ‘What’s the passive voice of He was running?’
The question reminded me of several English Grammar issues I myself came across while I was a student in Manipur, and reported to me every now and then by some of my friends. For example, a question in an all Manipur open English Grammar competition organized at the Manipur University in the late 1990s by some fresh-from-university students required the competitors to turn into passive the sentence Grass grows on the ground. A competitor, I was confused about what they exactly wanted us to do with the question. Were they deliberately trying to trick competitors with less grammatical knowledge into committing a grammatical error from not knowing for sure that such sentences cannot have passive equivalents? (However, the paper did not have any general or specific instructions requiring the competitors to do otherwise than what the questions did require them to do—if the question required you to turn Grass grows on the ground into passive, you had to do that. Leaving that questions would mean you did not know the answer.)
In fact, sentences of the kind of He was running and Grass grows on the ground don’t have passive equivalents. Why? Simple! Active sentences that can have passive equivalents have transitive verbs, and these sentences are always in the variant forms of:
Thus we broadly have two active sentence structures, with respect to the nature of the verb:
I hear many schools and tuition teachers in Manipur teach students the passive “equivalents” of sentences that cannot have passive equivalents. As noted above, such sentences as
From a stylistic perspective, I would go to the extent of saying that no active sentence has the same significance as its corresponding passive construction. No two sentences are equivalents. We use active constructions in certain circumstances, and passive constructions in certain circumstances, and they are stylistically (=for significance) not interchangeable. And sometimes you can never say something in the passive voice.
We say
This means that there are sentences which are impeccably grammatical in their construction but are usually not used in native speech environments. Language is not just grammar—usage (yes there are wrong usages) is also a large part of it.The question reminded me of several English Grammar issues I myself came across while I was a student in Manipur, and reported to me every now and then by some of my friends. For example, a question in an all Manipur open English Grammar competition organized at the Manipur University in the late 1990s by some fresh-from-university students required the competitors to turn into passive the sentence Grass grows on the ground. A competitor, I was confused about what they exactly wanted us to do with the question. Were they deliberately trying to trick competitors with less grammatical knowledge into committing a grammatical error from not knowing for sure that such sentences cannot have passive equivalents? (However, the paper did not have any general or specific instructions requiring the competitors to do otherwise than what the questions did require them to do—if the question required you to turn Grass grows on the ground into passive, you had to do that. Leaving that questions would mean you did not know the answer.)
In fact, sentences of the kind of He was running and Grass grows on the ground don’t have passive equivalents. Why? Simple! Active sentences that can have passive equivalents have transitive verbs, and these sentences are always in the variant forms of:
Subject + Verb + ObjectThe head verb (HV) in the verb phrase (VP) in such structures can either originally be a transitive verb (TV) or an intransitive verb (IV) used with prepositions which together function as a transitive phrasal verb (PhV).
Thus we broadly have two active sentence structures, with respect to the nature of the verb:
1. Subject + TV + ObjectKeep in (i) is originally a TV, and it takes an object. However, in (ii) look is an IV and it cannot have an object without the preposition at turns it with itself a transitive phrasal verb, look at, to take an object, Roger.
Roger keeps a dog.
2. Subject + IV+Prep + Object
The woman looked at Roger.
I hear many schools and tuition teachers in Manipur teach students the passive “equivalents” of sentences that cannot have passive equivalents. As noted above, such sentences as
3. He was running.cannot have passive equivalents, and if we call only sentences which can have passive equivalents “active”, then 3, 4 and 5 are not active sentences. In 3, (was) running is an IV. In 4, grows is an IV and on is not part of the VP (it is not grows on) but is the head of the adverb phrase on the ground (prep + noun phrase). The ground is not the object of grow, and as clear from the preceding sentence, grow does not form a grammatical category with on. (Grow on as a category is non-existent.) The sentence categorically is read as:
4. Grass grows on the ground.
5. Tomba is good.
Grass grows on the ground.In 5, is functions as a copular or connective verb, which some grammarians call incomplete verb requiring a complement (good in this case), not an object, though some grammarians call it “object”, causing more confusion than being explanatory; however, even if they call it “object”, such objects are different from objects of transitive verbs. Incomplete verbs are made complete either by adjective phrases or by noun phrases, or by adverb phrases; however, transitive verb phrases can completed only by noun phrases.
From a stylistic perspective, I would go to the extent of saying that no active sentence has the same significance as its corresponding passive construction. No two sentences are equivalents. We use active constructions in certain circumstances, and passive constructions in certain circumstances, and they are stylistically (=for significance) not interchangeable. And sometimes you can never say something in the passive voice.
6. Somebody has stolen my wallet.is different from
7. My wallet has been stolen.We don't say:
8. My wallet has been stolen by somebody.And there are sentences which native speakers speak only in passive constructions, and never in active constructions, and sentences which native speakers speak only in active constructions, and never in passive constructions.
We say
9. My father had an operation yesterday.or
10. My father was operated on yesterday.depending on the thematic/semantic requirements of the circumstances. However, except in certain specific cases (such as when you want to emphasize the agents) it would be quite odd to say in ordinary circumstances:
11. A team of surgeons operated on my father.but never (if not in very, very rare specific circumstances, or if you don’t do it deliberately for certain specific, unusual reasons):
12. My father was operated on by a team of (the most experienced) surgeons (in the country).Something is not right with this sentence if you don't understand it in some sense as supplied by the text in subscript.