Special collection of verbs that don't passivize.

[man of manners]

Hi!
I have always wondered why there are transitive verbs that do not passivize. I have collected few of them such as: survive- run out of - lack- resemble - have - get - possess - want [usually] -meet - mind - fit - flee.
I have also wondered why a verb cannot be passivized while a synonymous or partly synonymous one can be: like "have" and "own"، "grt" and "obtain"، "survive" and "avoid"، "meet" [by chance] and "run into" etc.
Can you help me to understand this linguistic phenomenon?

Thanks in advance!

 

[man of manners]

Oh, this is the first question I post and no one answers it. Is anything wrong with it?

 

[Raymott]

Quite a few of your examples are wrong.
"Hey, you've been had!"; "She was possessed by a demon."; "My car was fit with a new muffler."
It should be easy to understand. If something can't be done to something, it can't be expressed in the passive. Often it depends on the circumstances, the tense of the verb, the special meaning that the verb takes, and other factors.

 

[Raymott]

You can say either here in Aus.

 

[man of manners]

No. I have nothing useful to contribute. Others may feel the same; some may not be interested in this topic.

Just give it a try.

 

[GoesStation]

BrE: My car was fitted with a new ​silencer.

You can say either here in Aus.

Aussie English is flexible here. AmE only allows fitted and muffler​ -- though "My car got a new muffler" would be more natural.

 

[GoesStation]

Perhaps you'll get some responses if you write sample sentences demonstrating why you think the passive is not possible for the verbs you've listed.

 

[man of manners]

Quite a few of your examples are wrong.
"Hey, you've been had!"; "She was possessed by a demon."; "My car was fit with a new muffler."
It should be easy to understand. If something can't be done to something, it can't be expressed in the passive. Often it depends on the circumstances, the tense of the verb, the special meaning that the verb takes, and other factors.

They are not wrong.
"Have" when it refers to possession, It cannot be passivized. When it means "trick" it can be passivized.
"possess" when it refers to possession, It It cannot be passivized. When it means that an evil spirit controlled lonesome, It can be passivized.
"fit" when it means "suit" it cannot be passivized.

 

[man of manners]

Perhaps you'll get some responses if you write sample sentences demonstrating why you think the passive is not possible for the verbs you've listed.

I really don't know about this. I just have some examples of verbs and don't know why they don't passivize. That's why I am asking.

 

[Raymott]

It's not to do with the actual word, as you and I have both demonstrated. If the verb describes an action that cannot be done to something/someone, it doesn't take the passive.
And as in any language, there are things that we don't express in that way. Apart from the rule above, there's really no "why" about it.

 

[man of manners]

It's not to do with the actual word, as you and I have both demonstrated. If the verb describes an action that cannot be done to something/someone, it doesn't take the passive.
And as in any language, there are things that we don't express in that way. Apart from the rule above, there's really no "why" about it.

Does this apply to "survive" and "run out of"? Please, tell me how.

 

[man of manners]

The deputy was run out of town by the outlaws.
John was survived by his two younger daughters

No, I does not mean this. The first example you provided is only the passive of "run" and "out of" has reference of place as an adverb. I meant "run out of" as a phrasal verb or an idiom. Ex: The food was run out of.
The second example doesn't talk about "survive" meaning "To continue to live after some unpleasant event". I do know that "survive" can be passivized if it means "outlive" . Do you also think that the following sentence can be passivized?: "The accident was survived by him and his family"

 

[man of manners]

If something can't be done to something, it can't be expressed in the passive.

Can someone apply this to "survive" and "run out of", please?

 

[GoesStation]

Do you also think that the following sentence can be passivized?: "The accident was survived by him and his family"

Can someone apply this to "survive" and "run out of", please?

Your example sentence is already in the passive voice. As is typical, it would read better in the active voice.

Here's another: The goods were run out of by the store. That's a logically correct passive-voice sentence, but anyone who used it would likely be run out of town by the forum.

Your time might be better spent learning how to avoid the passive voice, rather than exactly where you can use it.

 

[man of manners]

Your time might be better spent learning how to avoid the passive voice, rather than exactly where you can use it.

I do avoid it often but I am studying this subject more closely.
Now, can any one tell me why "resemble" doesn't passivize?

 

[man of manners]

Possibly because we use the passive voice generally only with verbs in which there is some form of action on the part of the agent. When the verb denotes a pure state, with no suggestion of action, however slight, then the agent is not considered a 'do-er', and we don't use the passive.

OK, why doesn't "survive", when it means "to continue to live", passivize?

 

[man of manners]

Same reason.

Do you mean it cannot be passivized because 'survival' happens to us, not we cause it/make it happen?

 

[man of manners]

That's one way of putting it.

Is there any other way?

 

[man of manners]

Is there any other reason?