The plumber was got/made ...

[tulipflower]

The plumber was got to repair the leak.
The plumber was made to repair the leak.

Are these sentences correct?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Re: causative verb as passive

No.

- We got a plumber to repair the leak.
- They got a plumber to repair the leak.
- I got a plumber to repair the leak.
- He got a plumber to repair the leak.
- She got a plumber to repair the leak.

It would be grammatical to say "The plumber was gotten to repair the leak," but it wouldn't be natural.

If the plumber was made to repair the leak it would mean he was forced to do it. That's not likely.

 

[GoesStation]

Re: causative verb as passive

The plumber was got is grammatical in BrE (unless I am, once, again, very much mistaken) but not natural.

 

[emsr2d2]

Re: causative verb as passive

It's not natural for this BrE speaker.

We got a plumber to repair the leak. (We booked/hired a plumber ...)

 

[Rover_KE]

Re: causative verb as passive

'We called a plumber ...'

 

[Raymott]

Re: causative verb as passive

And therefore, "A plumber was called/booked/hired to repair the leak." But not 'got'.

 

[tedmc]

Re: causative verb as passive

I don't think two sentences posted have anything to do with causative verbs as the title suggests.

 

[Rover_KE]

Re: Which one is better, 1 or 2?

Please note that I have changed your thread title.

'Thread titles should include all or part of the word/phrase being discussed.'
​

 

[stefano]

The plumber was got to repair the leak.
The plumber was made to repair the leak.

Are these sentences correct?

My suggestion.
The plumber was sent to fix the leak.
The leak had to be fixed, so the plumber was called in.