passive participles

Originally Posted by AlainK

Hello mate,

All the best,

Alain

<I also said that I didn't know the Spanish language, maybe it's very different from the French and there are loopholes that I'm not aware of on the path to knowledge.

One would hope so, unless you are God. As for the rest, blabberings of an over-confident, self-important, French speaker. Try teaching ESL in various countries and situations. See where your confidence in your pristine terminology gets you.

Originally Posted by JJM Ballantyne

There are no passive participles in English; this form does not exist.

In Linguistics it does:

Juliet was (passive auxiliary) loved (passive participle) by Romeo.

Many students have (perfect auxiliary) loved (past participle) Romeo and Juliet.

Past participles occur in active sentences and passive participles in passive sentences.

Source: Linguistics, by Victoria A Fromkin. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0631197117
....
We were unimpressed (passive participle) by his efforts.
John is a frightened (passive participle) man. I am very interested (passive participle) in what you say.

All could be read as adjectival in character rather than verbal.

Source: Transformational Grammar, by Andrew Radford. Cambridge University Press.

More constructions containing passive participles:

Mary looks very bored.
The winner looked elated.
He seem depressed about the stockmarket.
Tim is the most respected player on the team.
Billy is considered untrustworthy.
Nixon was elected president in 1968.
Molly was called a reactionary.

From, A Grammar of the English Language, by William Cobbet. (1818)

"The Participles, however, are different in point of importance. They are of two sorts, that active and the passive. The former always ends in -ing and the latter is generally the same form of the past time of the verb out of which it grows. Thus: working is an active participle and worked a passive participle."

(Page 59 of The GEL)

[Roro]

Juliet was (passive auxiliary) loved (passive participle) by Romeo.
Many students have (perfect auxiliary) loved (past participle) Romeo and Juliet.

Good morning M56, you'd analyse the following as :[perfect auxiliary]+[past participle/passive auxiliary]+[passive participle]?
# Juliet has been loved by Romeo (if not so natural).

{M56} It sounds as if it is slightly mad. There may be problems.

I see, you're right! There may be problems.


.................................................. .....

1818?!

Umm... It's rather interesting to know why the cover term has changed. Thank you for your info, M56!

[AlainK]

Originally Posted by M56

One would hope so, unless you are God. As for the rest, blabberings of an over-confident, self-important, French speaker. Try teaching ESL in various countries and situations. See where your confidence in your pristine terminology gets you.

I don't believe in god, but I don't mind if you do.
(All right, I know we are not supposed to express such religious opinions, but frankly, being so kind as to put me that high above deserves a disclaimer, and anyway, you started it...)
At least now I can take it for granted you don't believe in me

As for "blabberings of an over-confident, self-important, <edited, no swear words please, mind your P&Qs> speaker", yes, I think I still can take lessons from other people, I am willing to learn, oh, how I'm loving it

"French speaker" : 'could be worse, I could be a Jewish Pole without a passport, I can't complain

"Try teaching ESL in various countries and situations."
That's what I've been at for about as long as you have, except that I'm not a native speaker -which I assume you are from the tone of you commandment.
I am sooooo bad : I even don't care much about correctness of zee English as long as zee people understand (foist) what people are telling them and they can use an acceptable form of "Globish" (second: global English) to have other people understand zem.
I mean, I'm pretty sure your students will never tell you "You're such a bore*..." because they will never get bored listening to you
(*bored: ? / listening : ? - fill in the gaps with the correct definition:
-past participle
-past participle passive
-passive past participle
-sumpting partzpl
-nov shmoz kapop)

(The right answer is, of course...)

"See where your confidence in your pristine terminology gets you"
I don't really bother about terminology, but apparently you didn't get the point. Or maybe I should say "You have misunderstood me"
(OK, a bone for you to chew on: is "misunderstood" a (passive) past participle (passive), could one say "ununderstood", in which case, could it be put in a box the same shape and the same shade of grey?... )

That's the main difference between the two of us I think, and I hope you will have enough sense of humour to excuse my atavic irony: as long as people can understand what you mean, what's the **** ?

In other words, I understand that as a teacher, you feel compelled to "explain" everything from a grammarian point of you, but as an "educator", don't you really think that "meaning" matters a lot more?...

Awaiting for your answer,

Sincerly yours,

Sub-corporal Franco, aka AK

<I don't believe in god, but I don't mind if you do.>

He believes in you. (Don't you just hate it when someone says that?) Capital G for "God" please.

<"French speaker" : 'could be worse, I could be a Jewish Pole without a passport, I can't complain >

What is "a Pole"? Do you mean "a Polish person"

<I am sooooo bad : I even don't care much about correctness of zee English as long as zee people understand (foist) what people are telling them and they can use an acceptable form of "Globish" (second: global English) to have other people understand zem. >

Great, as long as they don't have to do job interviews or university entrance exams. I do hope they are not paying you to teach "casually constructed" English though.

<I don't really bother about terminology, but apparently you didn't get the point. Or maybe I should say "You have misunderstood me">

Try "It's possible that I haven't been too clear, M56." LOL!

<That's the main difference between the two of us I think, and I hope you will have enough sense of humour to excuse my atavic irony: >

I'm a teacher trainer of both native and nonnative speakers...my sense of humour has to be enormous.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by M56

From, A Grammar of the English Language, by William Cobbet. (1818)

"The Participles, however, are different in point of importance. They are of two sorts, that active and the passive. The former always ends in -ing and the latter is generally the same form of the past time of the verb out of which it grows. Thus: working is an active participle and worked a passive participle."

(Page 59 of The GEL)

Let's all note the date on that ancient text.

Originally Posted by M56

One would hope so, unless you are God. As for the rest, blabberings of an over-confident, self-important, French speaker.

Allow me to take this opportunity to remind everyone that we are here to discuss the issues, not the author. Professionalism, please. Students are reading.

Originally Posted by AlainK

As for "blabberings of an over-confident, self-important, <edited, no swear words please, mind your P&Qs> speaker", yes, I think I still can take lessons from other people, I am willing to learn, oh, how I'm loving it

Our apologies, AlainK. M56's views do not reflect how we here at UsingEnglish feel about posters or their contributions.

Originally Posted by AlainK

fill in the gaps with the correct definition:
-past participle
-past participle passive
-passive past participle

I agree, Alain. Define your terms, M56.

[JJM Ballantyne]

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

I can accept that there are two participle forms in English: the so-called "present/progressive" ("-ing words") and the "past" ("-(e)d/irregular" words). But there is no form of a verb or participle in English that is intrinsically and distinctly passive.

Now I do not deny for one moment that there is a passive voice in English. But that voice is expressed by word constructions rather than unique word forms. There is nothing in the word "loved" to indicate it is passive.* It takes the construction "be+past participle" to create the passive voice:

I am loved

Neither "am" nor "loved" of themselves provide any passive meaning:

I am angry (no passive voice here)

He loved that dog (no passive voice here)

Where other languages might rely on inflected word forms, English relies on word constructions to create the same semantic effect.

So again, I maintain there is no such thing as a "passive participle" in our language.

* For that matter, because "loved" is a regular "-(e)d" word, there is no intrinsic quality to indicate that it is a participle either. It needs to be hitched up with another word to take on that function.

[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.

[JJM Ballantyne]

"I am angry (no passive voice here)

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

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."

No, no, you've missed my point here which was to show that neither the word "am" nor the word "loved" carries any intrinsic passive voice meaning.

"Am" only expresses the first person singular present tense form of "be."

"loved" on its own only barely expresses a sense of "completed or past love." To be understood by an English speaker:

as a verb, it needs a subject (I loved);

as a "participle," an auxiliary verb (I have loved); and

as an adjective, something to modify, (our loved ones).