Can "passivize" be used intransitively?

[M56]

Can "passivize" be used intransitively?

[Tdol]

I can't see why not. I don't think it's particularly elegant, but can't complain about it. I'd head for the passive, though.

[Casiopea]

Can "passivize" be used intransitively?

The word "passivize" is formed by adding -ize to the adjective "passive", and as a verb it's transitive.

Now, if you were to ask if intransitive verbs have passive structures, that would be a different story.

[M56]

The word "passivize" is formed by adding -ize to the adjective "passive", and as a verb it's transitive.

Now, if you were to ask if intransitive verbs have passive structures, that would be a different story.

And yet the OED gives "passivize" as both trans. and intrans.

On many other sites I have also "asked" if intransitive verbs can passivize.

[Casiopea]

And yet the OED gives "passivize" as both trans. and intrans.

Allow me to add the intransitive example:

e.g., Only transitive verbs can passivize.


But if it were intransitive, it wouldn't have a passive form, right? Consider,

The intranstive verb passivize was just passivized.

[M56]

Allow me to add the intransitive example:

e.g., Only transitive verbs can passivize.


But if it were intransitive, it wouldn't have a passive form, right? Consider,

The intranstive verb passivize was just passivized.

I would say it depends on if one sees the verb as inchoative or causative.

E.G:

Causatives: X-ize = to cause to become X(ed).

Therefore: The student passivized the sentence.

Inchoatives: X-ize = to become X(ed):

Only intransitive verbs can passivize.

"Passivize" seems to me to be an ergative form, wherein it can be used both transitively and intransitively without changing the meaning and there is an implied outside agent participating in the action.

E.G. The bureaucrat bribed easily.

The colours harmonized well.

What do you think?

[Tdol]

I'm not sure that I would see 'bribe' as inchoative.

[M56]

I'm not sure that I would see 'bribe' as inchoative.

<<ergative>>

[Casiopea]

"Passivize" seems to me to be an ergative form, wherein it can be used both transitively and intransitively without changing the meaning and there is an implied outside agent participating in the action.

What do you think?

Well, it's one and the same evidence given by a poster on EnglishForums.com, isn't it?

To me, the OED sentence expresses a reflexive agent: The verbs can passivize (themselves). In terms of semantics, "passivize" is not really transitive--it does in fact take an object, albeit an unrealized object, like "sing", "eat", and other verbs, where the inchoative, ergative argument walks in.

[M56]

Well, it's one and the same evidence given by a poster on EnglishForums.com, isn't it?

To me, the OED sentence expresses a reflexive agent: The verbs can passivize (themselves). In terms of semantics, "passivize" is not really transitive--it does in fact take an object, albeit an unrealized object, like "sing", "eat", and other verbs, where the inchoative, ergative argument walks in.

To me, the OED sentence expresses a reflexive agent: The verbs can passivize (themselves).

I see that, yes, but how then do you see these two?


The leaf falls.

The tear drops.

As reflexive? Or as having an implied external agent?