Search results for 'tag:Passive sentences tag:Present perfect' matching tags 'Passive sentences' and 'Present perfect'

Re: Passive sentences-it

CalifJim — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:55:59 GMT

The "rule" of not mixing active and passive only applies where it is possible to make all the parts active or all passive. Further note that the example on that website is of a sentence of two independent clauses joined by "and". I don't think the "rule" necessarily has to apply to subordinate clauses.

There is no passive sentence possible when there is no object in the active sentence. Because of this "it does not rain" does not have a passive form. ("it has not been raining" is not passive. It is simply a different active tense -- present perfect continuous.)

The quake in China

Rotter — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:54:47 GMT

1.Several thousand people were killed by the earthquake in China.

2.Several thousand people had been killed by the earthquake in China.

I know the first sentence is fine. It is a passive sentence.

It is not correct to say 'has been killed' because the quake took place almost 2 weeks ago. The present perfect is not suitable for a past incident

Is the second sentence fine?

Re: transitive or intransitive

Mr Wordy — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:30:57 GMT

Anonymous

Here, "is vanished", are we taking it as an intransitive?

If yes, then, are all intransitives be able to form present perfect sentences?

I'm not an expert on grammar or linguistics, but here are my thoughts as an ordinary native user of English. I hope I got all the grammatical terminology correct!

I think that all verbs -- transitive or intransitive -- are able to form present perfect sentences: "He has died", "It has vanished", "They've eaten all the pies". At least, I can't think of any verbs that can't, or any reason why they should exist.

"Is" (or, analogously, "are", "was" or "were") followed by the past participle of a transitive verb can range from a pure passive use ("I'd be astonished if that record is broken by an American") to an adjectival use ("This watch is broken."). In the latter case, the idea that the watch has been broken by something or someone, though in theory implied by the word "broken", is weak or non-existent, and "broken" behaves as an adjective that just describes the present state of the watch (just like "The watch is heavy"). Moreover it can be placed before the noun: "A broken watch".

"Is" followed by the past participle of an intransitive verb can't form an passive sentence in the usual sense: "He is/was died by a heart attack" is wrong. So, if the sentence "The watch is vanished" is interpreted as an ordinary passive then it must be the case that "vanished" is used transitively. (There is, however, something called the "impersonal passive". The usual examples are things like "it is believed", where we are not saying that the thing believed is "it" (ordinary passive), but just that there is a general sense of people believing. I'm not very clear if and how "is vanished" might fit this sense.)

The remaining possibility is that the past participles of intransitive verbs (such as, perhaps, "vanish") can, by analogy with the adjectival use of transitive past participles, be used adjectivally -- even though the "background" meaning that I mentioned earlier can't exist even in theory. Let's look at some examples. "It is existed" and "It is behaved" are completely wrong. "He is died" is not quite completely wrong but could (to me) only be used in certain special situations, such as jokey use or attempts at recreating or preserving archaic language. In most contexts it would sound unnatural. Are there any intransitive past participles that are natural adjectives in everyday language? One candidate that comes to mind is "fallen", in the sense of "fallen from a state of respectability". For example, "a fallen woman" is perfectly good English to me (though "she is fallen" still has a slight sense to me that it is an archaic form of "she has fallen").

Re: active\passive

Yankee — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:59:04 GMT

Hi Kooyeen

I really don't have any statistics on which tense would be more frequently used in informal AmE in a passive sentence like yours. But I do think that we're more likely to the present perfect in "Damn! My bike's been stolen!" than to use the present perfect in "Damn! Somebody has stolen my bike!"

I found your first response to be misleading because you were assuming/presenting a context that simply was not provided in the original question. You really can't go too wrong if you change a simple past tense active sentence to a simple past tense passive sentence. And I'm not talking about just on tests -- I'm talking about everyday speech, too. However, you can go very wrong if you run around blindly changing simple past tense active sentences to present perfect passive sentences.

In your specific example, I suppose the reason we'd be more likely to use the present perfect in the passive sentence is because in the passive sentence the focus changes from the act of theft (which is finished) to the fact that the new "state" or status of my bike is "not here now".

Re: active\passive

Kooyeen — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:13:38 GMT

HI again Amy,
I'm so sorry... I still don't understand and I have the exact same problem, LOL. I think we are not understanding each other well, so I'll try to be clearer now.

Yankee wrote:

I agreed with you that, in AmE, using the present perfect would be more "natural" in that sort of passive sentence than it would be in the active version of the same sentence.

I wanted to know if the present perfect was more or less natural than the simple past in the passive sentence. That is, I was interested in the comparison between these two, considering the context too:
Damn, my bike was stolen! Where is it?
Damn, my bike's been stolen! Where is it?

Yankee wrote:
However, I also wanted to emphasize the fact that you added context

I should have emphasized that I was actually interested in that specific context. I know about other contexts (I would never say what you wrote in red), but I am really unsure what to do in contexts like the one I provided.

Thanks again

Re: active\passive

Yankee — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:57:11 GMT

Hi Kooyeeen

I agreed with you that, in AmE, using the present perfect would be more "natural" in that sort of passive sentence than it would be in the active version of the same sentence. However, I also wanted to emphasize the fact that you added context -- and context tends to influence people's choice of tense. For example:

A: I was really bummed out yesterday.
B: Why? What happened?
A: Somebody stole my bike./My bike was stolen./~~Somebody has stolen my bike./My bike has been stolen.~~

(The stuff that is in red and crossed out is absolutely wrong in this context!)

Re: active\passive

Kooyeen — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:37:29 GMT

Yankee wrote:

I do see your point, though. I suppose we would tend to be more "willing" to use the present perfect in a sentence such as "My bike's been stolen." -- especially with "Damn!" preceding it. Still, I wouldn't find "Damn! My bike was stolen!" particularly odd in everyday AmE.

Thanks Amy.
So you mean that both tenses would be equally good in American English, in passive sentences like that one? I mean, both of these are ok in AmE...
Damn, someone stole my bike! Where is it?
Damn, someone's stolen my bike! Where is it?
...but I think the past simple is probably more common.
If you now consider the passive versions, does the preference change so it's the other way around? (= the past simple is not the most common anymore)
Damn, my bike was stolen! Where is it?
Damn, my bike's been stolen! Where is it?

Sorry that I ask again, but I didn't undestand. Thanks

PS: after reading your post again, I think you said the past simple is still the most common one in American mouths, even in passives like that.

Re: active\passive

Newguest — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:02:15 GMT

Yankee wrote:
If you decide to use the present perfect, then it doesn't matter whether the sentence is active or passive. You have decided to use the present perfect. Period.

Likewise, if you decide to use the past simple, then it doesn't matter whether the sentence is active or passive. You have decided to use the past simple. Period.

If you are asked on a test to change the sentence "Someone stole my bicycle" to a passive sentence, it would very likely be marked as incorrect if you changed it to the present perfect passive -- even though there wouldn't be much difference in meaning as compared to the past simple passive sentence in this case. When you are asked on a test to transform such an easy sentence to the passive, you are usually being tested on your ability to build the passive in the same tense.

People do sometimes omit the word 'the' when talking about tenses, but my advice would be to always include it.

OK. I got it. Thanks.

Re: active\passive

Yankee — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:51:19 GMT

If you decide to use the present perfect, then it doesn't matter whether the sentence is active or passive. You have decided to use the present perfect. Period.

Likewise, if you decide to use the past simple, then it doesn't matter whether the sentence is active or passive. You have decided to use the past simple. Period.

If you are asked on a test to change the sentence "Someone stole my bicycle" to a passive sentence, it would very likely be marked as incorrect if you changed it to the present perfect passive -- even though there wouldn't be much difference in meaning as compared to the past simple passive sentence in this case. When you are asked on a test to transform such an easy sentence to the passive, you are usually being tested on your ability to build the passive in the same tense.

People do sometimes omit the word 'the' when talking about tenses, but my advice would be to always include it.

Re: "a" or "one of"

MarvinTheMartian — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:38:59 GMT

Thank you Yankee - you've been a tremendous help. My English has become so corrupted over the years that I can no longer tell when a sentence sounds idiomatic, which often causes me to second-guess myself.

One more thing: for some reason, it seems more natural to use the present perfect in passive sentences. For example:

"Look! The great oak tree in front of our house has been cut down" as opposed to "Look! The great oak tree in front of our house was cut down" which, to me, sounds a bit odd. (Oddly enough, the same sentence sounds fine if I substitute was with got. I gives it a somewhat more informal feel, however. At least, that's what I think.)

Do you agree with me, or am I just losing what little grasp of the English language I have left?