Having received the answer to my previous question about the 'chisel-weasel' thing, I'm back with another one . This problem deals with grammar.
Several grammar manuals (incl. "Grammar and Vocabulary for Cambridge Advanced and Proficiency") claim that it's incorrect to make passive constructions with the indirect object as a subject if there're verbs like 'suggest, explain, announce, repeat, describe etc' as the predicate (those which take indirect objects with the prep 'to').
So, according to this rule, the only way of passivising the sentence like:
The teacher explained a new rule to his students.
A new rule was explained to the students (by the teacher).
However, to my ear the sentence
The students were explained a new rule.
doesn't sound that bad.
Nor does the sentence:
We were suggested a new idea.
(though I'm not dead sure with this one).
Could you please help me there? I'll be especially grateful to native speakers)
Thanks in advance for your attention and help!
PS: Which of them sounds better :
A new idea was suggested TO us
A new idea was suggested FOR us?
Thanks a lot! I'll keep it in mind!
I've got misled by the passage from a NZ site:
"We were explained in detail how to get into our kayak, how to fasten the spray skirts, how to act when something is wrong and, of course, how to hold and use the paddles!" (New Zealand Kayaking, unfortunately I can't post the link as I'm a newbie here so far).
Is this structure wrong or does the part 'how to get...' change everything? What about 'We were explained that....'? Should such structures be paraphrased too?
Thank you for your help again!
I'm not a teacher, but I write for a living. Please don't ask me about 2nd conditionals, but I'm a safe bet for what reads well in (American) English.
Thank you ever so much!