I enjoy studying the passive sentence. What rhetorical tricks are up the sleeves of those who craft them? Why does it seem to say the same thing as the active, when in fact it doesn't say the exact same thing?
(1) The boy kicked his bike.
(2) The bike was kicked by the boy.
They appear to say the same thing, or mean the same thing--but it is not exactly the same. In sentence (1), we focus on an agent (the boy) doing something (kicking) to something (the bike). However, in sentence (2), we see the action from the object's point of view. Our attention is drawn to the outcome and object of an action by an agent. In cases such as these, we have to ask ourselves, "Why are we interested in the outcome and object of an action?" We cannot chalk it all up to ponderous writing, for that would give the writer very little credit. What I am getting at becomes clearer in the following examples:
(3) The judge overturned the case.
(4) The case was overturned.
If we use that passive construction, we have the handy little option of omitting the agent, which could be placed in the prepositional phrase, "by the judge." Now we no longer focus on a who doing something; we focus on a what being done to, while the agent is anonymous. It is in these constructions we have to be aware of conspicuous absences.
I could go on longer, but I ought to stop. That's just an instance of how someone can use the passive construction to mean something else, apart from the "common sense" reading of active constructions.
Wiki' says that Watson actually did kind of wean him off the hard stuff, though he also admits that he only set it dormant rather than kill it outright.
Well English borrows heavily from Latin, so I'm not surprised. For being a Germanic language at root, it has quite a bit of Latin/Romance language influences. I blame the few hundred years or so French was popular with the aristocracy, but whatever.
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/11/08 | Reply
@SomeGuy:
I know that this will not sound like the coolest thing ever said, but I think that language is awesome! It's so full of mystery, paradox, and beauty.
SomeGuy
Canadian Liaison (Team) | Posted 07/10/08 | Reply
@Pleiades Rising:
I've told you before that you're awesome, right?
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/08/08 | Reply
I enjoy studying the passive sentence. What rhetorical tricks are up the sleeves of those who craft them? Why does it seem to say the same thing as the active, when in fact it doesn't say the exact same thing?
(1) The boy kicked his bike.
(2) The bike was kicked by the boy.
They appear to say the same thing, or mean the same thing--but it is not exactly the same. In sentence (1), we focus on an agent (the boy) doing something (kicking) to something (the bike). However, in sentence (2), we see the action from the object's point of view. Our attention is drawn to the outcome and object of an action by an agent. In cases such as these, we have to ask ourselves, "Why are we interested in the outcome and object of an action?" We cannot chalk it all up to ponderous writing, for that would give the writer very little credit. What I am getting at becomes clearer in the following examples:
(3) The judge overturned the case.
(4) The case was overturned.
If we use that passive construction, we have the handy little option of omitting the agent, which could be placed in the prepositional phrase, "by the judge." Now we no longer focus on a who doing something; we focus on a what being done to, while the agent is anonymous. It is in these constructions we have to be aware of conspicuous absences.
I could go on longer, but I ought to stop. That's just an instance of how someone can use the passive construction to mean something else, apart from the "common sense" reading of active constructions.
Shinmaru
Baron of Terribad (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/08/08 | Reply
@Dagger IX1:
We just need to wean him onto something lighter -- perhaps baby punching.
This, again, is something incredibly important that I didn't learn until college. Woo!!
Love thy Evangelion.
jomz
Otaku Summoner (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/07/08 | Reply
I didn't know that Holmes drug using fact... It seems it was legal at that time, too...
SomeGuy
Canadian Liaison (Team) | Posted 07/07/08 | Reply
@Dagger IX1:
Wiki' says that Watson actually did kind of wean him off the hard stuff, though he also admits that he only set it dormant rather than kill it outright.
Dagger IX1
Team | Posted 07/07/08 | Reply
Get Holmes into rehab, man!
Nehszriah
Hits Self With Axe (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/07/08 | Reply
@SomeGuy:
Well English borrows heavily from Latin, so I'm not surprised. For being a Germanic language at root, it has quite a bit of Latin/Romance language influences. I blame the few hundred years or so French was popular with the aristocracy, but whatever.
...and yeah, I feel better. Thanks.
Be true, be you and of course, be otaku.
SomeGuy
Canadian Liaison (Team) | Posted 07/07/08 | Reply
@Nehszriah:
Hehe. If it makes you feel better, I didn't fully understand active and passive voice until about 3rd year uni', when I took Latin 100.
Matter of fact, a lot of my grammar knowledge came from Latin class . . . go fig' . . .
Nehszriah
Hits Self With Axe (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/07/08 | Reply
Ah, so that's passive voice. I never understood what my teachers meant by that. I was a horrible kid when it can to that. ^_^'
Be true, be you and of course, be otaku.