I need to improve my sentence structure. I have a tendency of writing in passive tense and I'd like to correct the way I write. Can someone point me to a site that has thorough info on passive tenses?
- Status
There we go...I knew there a thread existed somewhere...it was just a matter of going through all of them and finding it. Thanks! Now it's all in a matter of figuring out how all of this works. I'm discovering that where one rule applies, so does another. It's overwhelming.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,606
- Reaction score
- 857
- Location
- Wherever the MMC is
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Nah, it's not nearly as difficult as it seems when you don't quite have it totally down. But the active-passive thing is really pretty easy to master. There are telltale signs which help you recognize passive voice. Once you've learned to identify passive voice in sentences written by other people so thoroughly you get it right every time, you'll be able to spot 'em in your own work, too. Slogging through fixing them is no fun, but it beats being poked with a sharp stick.Now it's all in a matter of figuring out how all of this works. I'm discovering that where one rule applies, so does another. It's overwhelming.
Remember, nine-year-old kids master this. You're more savvy about writing than your typical nine-year-old, right? Of course!
Maryn, pep-talking instead of floor-scrubbing
In my profession, passive/active voice play important roles and I can always overview on what's being said at time as an Interpreter. In layman's term, passive described as vague and active voice provides more details, correct me if I am wrong.
I think your definition is off base, Signs. Grammatical voice is the relationship of the subject of the sentence to the predicate, the verb or verb phrase.
Perhaps oversimplified, active voice has the subject doing the action.
Eric kicked the dog.
Passive voice has the subject receiving the action or being acted upon.
The dog was kicked by Eric.
Perhaps oversimplified, active voice has the subject doing the action.
Eric kicked the dog.
Passive voice has the subject receiving the action or being acted upon.
The dog was kicked by Eric.
Last edited:
Yep. But with the passive voice, you also have the option of not saying who did it: "The dog was kicked." That's why some people think passive means vague or lacking in detail--because passive sentences can lack the detail of who did the verb, whereas active sentences can't.
But sometimes using passive voice makes perfect sense; for example, "She got sunburned at the beach" is a passive sentence--she didn't sunburn herself, the sun did. But it would sound ridiculous to put that sentence into the active voice: "The sun burned her at the beach"?!? There are just some sentences that NEED to be in the passive voice.
There's only a problem with passive voice when either (1) you want to know who did the verb, but the passive sentence doesn't tell you ("The dog was kicked"--well, who kicked her?); or (2) the passive sentence tells you who did it, but in an unnecessarily long, clunky way. "The dog was kicked by Eric" is a clunky sentence; "Eric kicked the dog" is not.
I was attempting to point out the passive voice being vague or lacking detail. This is a sneaky way of an interpreter to put out some passive voice if unsure what was read JK I do take my career serious
Huh? Playing "change the wording" is always fun.
Consider "Eric kicked." It's a complete sentence and not passive, but what about vague? Yep.
This is a sneaky way of an interpreter to put out some passive voice if unsure what was read JK I do take my career serious
Am I the only person here who doesn't understand this sentence? I mean literally--it makes no sense.
If you're using the transitive meaning of kick--Eric's foot struck <object>--it isn't a complete sentence because the object is missing.
If you're using the intransitive meaning of kick--Eric swung his foot forcefully--it's a complete and specific sentence.
The only thing vague about it is that without context it's impossible to know which meaning applies.
Right, it takes another sign language interpreter to understand what I mean. Deaf people speak with the hands, its very visual. Now, if you were to understand a deaf person's language in reverse mode ( voicing what 's being said) sometimes an interpreter may find concepts of what's being conveyed. Does that help you? If you don't understand let me know
Last edited:
Correct and vague were my points that anyone can play at changing example sentences to have different meanings and twist the examples.
Right, it takes another sign language interpreter to understand what I mean. Deaf people speak with the hands, its very visual. Now, if you were to understand a deaf person's language in reverse mode ( voicing what 's being said) sometimes an interpreter may find concepts of what's being conveyed. Does that help you? If you don't understand let me know
I'm deaf and have been fluent in ASL all my life, and I don't understand your meaning, either.
ASL-to-English interpreters (terps to us deafies) must be clear in both languages.
I am taking my source from chap 10 of my "Transliterating: Show Me the English" book by Jean E. Kelly.
One example is a feature called "voice", which can either active or passive. The technical defination of "voice " is
The form of a transitive verb that indicates whether or not the subject performs the action denoted by the verb. A verb with a direct object is in the active voice. When the direct object is converted into a subject, the verb is in the passive voice. (Hodges & Whitten, 1982, p.557) *note* Most sentense in American Sign Language (ASL) are in the active voice
Does that help?
Last edited:
What you last wrote is clear. The definition is accurate, and your observation about American Sign Language being mostly in active voice is true. Good start.
Interpreting work is very technical
p.s. I give Jean E. Kelly the credit its from her book as I mentioned in my post.
Last edited:
Excuse me if I'm nitpicking, but that makes it sound like only transitive verbs can be in the active voice. I would say, rather...
1. Only transitive verbs can be in the passive voice. There has to be an object of the verb in order for the sentence to be in passive voice: "The demonstrators were arrested." If the verb is intransitive, there's no object and therefore it's impossible to use the verb in the passive voice.
2. Transitive verbs can be in either the active voice ("The police arrested the demonstrators") or the passive voice ("The demonstrators were arrested."/"The demonstrators were arrested by the police.")
3. Intransitive verbs can only be in the active voice, because by definition intransitive verbs don't have an object. "He sat down and meditated." Both those verbs are intransitive and in the active voice--and it's impossible to put this sentence into the passive voice ("He was meditated"?!?!?).
Nitpick ahead: It's actually not impossible to put intransitives into the passive voice; English just doesn't do it. German, for example, does this through a dummy subject "it" (as English does in active "It's raining.") So a German sentence might read "Es wird getanzt," which could be rendered as "It was danced," but that's not idiomatic in English. Instead you'd probably get: "There was dancing," to express that concept.
Sometimes, English allows prepositional objects to be promoted; not only with prepositional verbs (that are incomplete without a prepositional phrase: "Joe can be relied on.") but also with intransitives ("I can see that this bed has been slept in. The sheets are messed up," where sleep is an intransitive verb.)
Please be advised that my source came from a book that I underlined above. I think Dawnstorm made a good point when referring to a foreign language. Yes, American Sign Language is considered a foreign language
Thank you
Last edited:
I'm just here to point out that Grammar does not have an "e" in it, as the thread title suggests.
- Status