[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by JJM Ballantyne

Sorry, I simply don't agree that there is such a thing as a "passive participle" in English.

No need to apologize. I, for one, am with you. Unless M56 can define his terms, there's no reason to continue discussing "passive participles". If we don't know what it is, then we should ignore that part of the discussion and move on. Let's talk about what a "past" participle is.

Terminology and structure. What a mess . . . And yet it's so simple.

Originally Posted by JJM

I am loved.
Neither "am" nor "loved" of themselves provide any passive meaning.

Right. "loved" doesn't function as a "passive" verb in that context, nor in this context: "He is loved by all." In both examples, "loved" is a "past" participle (in form only). Its function, an adjective:

EX: I am loved.
EX: I am loved by all. (an adverb modifying the adjective "loved")

If "loved" expressed "passive"ness, then the object would be understood as undergoing the verb's action; i.e., "passive", but there isn't an object to speak of:

"I" is not the object;
"am" is not an auxiliary, and
"loved" is not a verb.

"passive" refers to structure. I agree, JJM.

Originally Posted by JJM

I am angry (no passive voice here)

"angry" is not a participle, so that example doesn't stand.

Originally Posted by JJM

He loved that dog (no passive voice here)

"loved" functions as a verb in that structure, not as a participle, so the example doesn't stand.