Active/passive, ergative verbs

[Don Karnage]

Dear teachers,
I've heard about ergative verbs and now it is clear why the sentance "The door closed" is correct.
But I still can't understand why some verbs, which are not included in ergative verbs list, still are used in active voice instead of passive.
For example. "The company was founded in 1990". We have passive voice here, it's clear. But here is the sentance I saw on 'dictionary.cambridge.org' : "a society founded on egalitarian principles". Why isn't passive voice used here?

Other examples:
- Category: American companies established in 2008. (why not "companies that were established..."?)
- 10 successful startups founded during 2008 Great Recession.
- Most popular books published in 1990.
- The goal is to record most books written or edited by Western Michigan University faculty, staff and students.

 

[Piscean]

These forms are passive. They are in reduced relative clauses.

"a society founded on egalitarian principles". Why isn't passive voice used here?

Other examples:
- Category: American companies (which were) established in 2008.
- 10 successful startups (which were) founded during 2008 Great Recession.
- Most popular books (w hich were)published in 1990.
- The goal is to record most books (which were/have veen) written or edited by Western Michigan University faculty, staff and students.

 

[Don Karnage]

As I understand the information about relative clause, it is like an extra phrase, which tells us some additional information about the noun. And in reduced clause we eliminate pronoun and linked verb. In our case it is exactly our missed "which were".
But, can you please describe me the situations we can do this (make reduced clause), how to understand it is a kind of additional information or not? Having a text, for example:

"Coca-Cola [that was] established in 1956 by two entrepreneurs from Canada, is now one of the most successfull companies in the World. Its first advertisement [that was] published in the local newspaper for only 1 cent, highly increased demand for previously unknown beverage.",
I'm sure that here it is possible to remove "that was", because it is clearly that each sentance has additional information, without wich the sentances will still make sense. But in my first set of examples, or sentances from study materials on relative clause (see below), there is no "additional information" which we can easily remove from the sentance, I would even say it is the core information.
- This is the place [where] we first met.
- Do you remember the time [when] we went on a family trip to Europe.

 

[Tarheel]

I would say "founded on egalitarian principles" is an adjective modifying "society" with the entire thing being a noun phrase.

 

[Don Karnage]

I would say "founded on egalitarian principles" is an adjective modifying "society" with the entire thing being a noun phrase.

What does this mean for me? Another one rule that allows us to remove pronoun+verb?

 

[Tarheel]

@Don Karnage If there is no verb there is neither active nor passive voice.

 

[Piscean]

Whether you think of such words as exciting and excited as adjectives or past participles of verbs the former has an active meaning, the latter a passive one.

 

[emsr2d2]

"Coca-Cola [that was] established in 1956 by two entrepreneurs from Canada ...

Its first advertisement [that was] published in the local newspaper for only 1 cent ...

In the sentences above, you need a comma after "Coca-Cola" and "advertisement", followed by "which was".

 

[jutfrank]

"Coca-Cola, established in 1956 by two entrepreneurs from Canada, is now one of the most successfull companies in the World. Its first advertisement, published in the local newspaper for only 1 cent, highly increased demand for previously unknown beverage."

That's fine but only with commas surrounding the additional information (which I've marked in red). You can remove the red parts without interfering with the structure of the sentence.

I'm sure that here it is possible to remove "that was", because it is clearly that each sentance has additional information, without wich the sentances will still make sense. But in my first set of examples, or sentances from study materials on relative clause (see below), there is no "additional information" which we can easily remove from the sentance, I would even say it is the core information.
- This is the place [where] we first met.
- Do you remember the time [when] we went on a family trip to Europe.

Right. In those relative clauses the information is defining, which means that the clause can't be removed.

 

[Don Karnage]

Right. In those relative clauses the information is defining, which means that it can't be removed.

So, it means that relative clauses take place only in situations with additional information is not correct, right?

 

[Don Karnage]

In the sentences above, you need a comma after "Coca-Cola" and "advertisement", followed by "which was".

It is interesting. I've read the article where it was explained that commas are not necessary.

Quotation:
Remember, punctuation means like a period, comma, question mark and so on. A punctuation hint, relative clause is sometimes, not always, have these commas around the clause. This is also a really good hint that the relative clause is a non-restrictive clause. That means it's not essential to understand the noun. So this one tip, but this is not always something that you can use. Sometimes there's no punctuation you can use...
... So this is an example of a restrictive clause, therefore we use "that" here, "that" and no punctuation. So, if you have a restrictive clause, you won't see these commas around the clause. So, this is a quick introduction to that."

Here is the link: https://www.englishclass101.com/les...e-clauses-and-reduced-relative-clauses?lp=172

 

[Piscean]

Commas are not used in defining relative clauses.

 

[jutfrank]

So, it means that relative clauses take place only in situations with additional information is not correct, right?

Yes. There are two basic types of relative clause. Only in non-defining ones is there additional information that can be removed. In defining ones, the information is not additional and therefore cannot be removed.

 

[jutfrank]

It is interesting. I've read the article where it was explained that commas are not necessary.

It's not true that commas are not necessary. Where exactly in the link does it contradict this fact?

 

[Don Karnage]

It's not true that commas are not necessary. Where exactly in the link does it contradict this fact?

Quotation:
"...it's essential, we have this information to understand the differences between these two nouns. So this is an example of a restrictive clause, therefore we use "that" here, "that" and no punctuation. So, if you have a restrictive clause, you won't see these commas around the clause".

And here is the sentance used as an example:
"The computer that he bought online is really fast."

 

[jutfrank]

When I said "It's not true that commas are not necessary", I was referring to the 'Coca Cola' sentence in post #3.

In the sentence The computer that he bought online is really fast, commas are not correct because the information in the relative clause is defining, and therefore not removable.

 

[Don Karnage]

Commas are not used in defining relative clauses.

When I said "It's not true that commas are not necessary", I was referring to the 'Coca Cola' sentence in post #3.

I guess now I understand. Here is a good example in Raymond Murphy's handbook.
I thank all of you for your help.