+0
Hi. I think we could use modal verbs with intransitive verbs, like "might have disappeared" (I think the word "disappeared" is an intransitive verb). Also, I don't think we could write "might have been disappeared." (I think this modal verb construction is in the passive). Would it be correct to say modal verbs in the passive are to be thought of as the same as the passive verbs like "is made" when we tries to apply the rule that says no passive form is used for intransitive verbs (I am not sure whether it is a rule or just a recommendation but I think it is how it is how I learned in school.)

To go further, would you say intransitive verbs should not be used in (for?) the likes of the form/construction below?

to have been disappeared

To go even further, would you say intransitive verbs should not be used in (for?) the likes of the form/construction below? I think the phrase below doesn't make sense but wish you get the sense of what I am trying to ask by it.



like being disappeared

I tried to ask the pretty much the same or similar question in the tread I started a few days ago named "For intransitive, non passive form?" but I didn't get any response/answer.
Comments  
In general, intransitive verbs can not be used in the passive voice, with one exception. When a prepositional phrase follows, it is possible:

He looked at me <-> I was looked at by him.He might have looked at me <-> I might have been looked at by him.

I lived in a house <-> A house was lived in by me.

Note that you need the prepositions at and in here. These sentences are very uncommon.

I don't see any particular connection to modals.

(One might argue that 'to look at' and 'to live in' etc. are transitive phrasal verbs...)
Hi. Thank you. I think what I am most keen on getting some help on is where the modal verbs in the passive fit, if at all, in the rule/recommendation (I am not sure it is a rule or recommendation or not - it is something told by someone who speaks English better than I) that says (something like) that no passive tense (voice?) is possible for intransitive verbs since intransitive verbs don't have objects by nature (roughly stated).

I think these are not correct:



He was slept/yelled by Joe.

Are these possible? Note these seem to demonstrate/involve modals in the passive.

It would/might have been slepted/yelled.

I think these are correct. I am not sure I am asking this exactly the way it should be asked or reflects the original thought I had but allow me to ask this: Are the words below, "slept" and "yelled," intransitive verbs although they have the prepositions (I think they are that) "in" and "at" after them?

It would/might have been slept in/yelled at.

Any help would be appreciated.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
AnonymousI think these are not correct:



He was slept/yelled by Joe.
You are right, these are incorrect.
AnonymousAre these possible? Note these seem to demonstrate/involve modals in the passive.

It would/might have been slepted/yelled.
No, these are also incorrect.
AnonymousAre the words below, "slept" and "yelled," intransitive verbs although they have the prepositions (I think they are that) "in" and "at" after them?

It would/might have been slept in/yelled at.

Yes, yelled is an intransitive verb in this sense (good example! This one is quite common). The passive can only be used because of the preposition 'at'. This corresponds to my earlier examples.

You don't need would or might; you can use all (passive voice) forms of the verb with the trailing 'at'.

I was yelled at.
I am being yelled at.

I will be yelled at.

I am going to have been being yelled at.
etc.
Thank you very much for your help.