Is this guy a fellow CC member?

[User482]

Funny?

No.

Sarcastic.

Yes.

You see, there's me saying he's passive, when usually he's the opposite and stirring up some heated discussion. Sarcasm is supposed be the lowest form of wit - that being the case I expected even you to get it.

Certainly not asking you to like it. In fact, it pleases me even more if you don't.

Now, I seem to have somehow unblocked you but I think I've remedied that now

Drongo = ignored member. I expect you're used to it.

 

[bonsaibilly]

Is that meant to be in any way funny?

I think the voice was 'passive' in the sense that reports like this one always imply that no one was actively driving the car (over the bicycle, into the tree, or wherever), it was just drifting along the road when something happened to it (a bicycle threw itself under the wheels, a tree suddenly reared up, or whatever). HTH.

That still isn't passive voice though. No matter what you can throw at it to suggest it is, it, er, isn't! You have passive voice, which is clearly defined, but no other expression of "passive" that is in any way defined or part of our grammar.

I don't know where this trend came from of describing certain ways of writing as passive when they aren't. America most probably, although I admit that a gross speculation has just been made. BB

 

[User482]

That still isn't passive voice though. No matter what you can throw at it to suggest it is, it, er, isn't! You have passive voice, which is clearly defined, but no other expression of "passive" that is in any way defined or part of our grammar.

I don't know where this trend came from of describing certain ways of writing as passive when they aren't. America most probably, although I admit that a gross speculation has just been made. BB

The grammar isn't passive voice, but the way the report is written gives the impression that the act was passive, as if the driver had no agency.

Which is what I took TMN's post to mean, anyway.

 

[Fnaar]

I wasn't criticising you, I was criticising @Fnaar for his poor effort at Grammar Nazism!

This thread really has taken a few unexpected turns - shouldnt we all be joining forces against the driver?

It wasn't a poor effort at all. I was merely pointing out that the grammatical structure known as the passive voice wasn't evident in what had been posted.

 

[Drago]

You mean that which had been posted?

 

[robjh]

I don't know where this trend came from of describing certain ways of writing as passive when they aren't. America most probably, although I admit that a gross speculation has just been made. BB

This confusion over the term goes back at least to the early 20th century - there is a well-known (in America) style manual from 1920 that warns gravely against using the passive while demonstrating that the authors have little clue what it is. But don't just blame the Americans, it was enthusiastically taken up over here too, not least by George Orwell who wrote some notable bollox on the subject. The internet is full of the most blethering nonsense about imaginary passives, when what people really mean is impersonal constructions or those that are low in agency or assigning responsibility.

 

[jefmcg]

[QUOTE 4119154, member: 9609"]can someone give me a clue as to what you are all going on about ... passive voice ??? (i have googled it but non the wiser) most confusing thread of all time..[/QUOTE]

OK, let me give my non-grammarian explanation.

This sentence is normal, active voice:
The car ran over the bicycle.

Convert it to passive voice, where the thing doing the action becomes the object of the sentence.
The bicycle was run over by the car.

After this,we leave the world of grammar, but we see in news articles this construction taken further.

The cyclist died after his bicycle collided with a HGV.

To a normal reader, that would suggest that the cyclist died from cycling into a (presumably stationary) lorry. Of course, that wouldn't usually result in a fatal injury. It would be more correct to say "The HGV collided with the cyclist". I don't know why they don't say this. Maybe it's legal team, as you "can't libel the dead".

To me, the line I quoted "The car came to a halt with the bicycle under it" seems to take this to the next level. The whole mystery of how a cycle might have ended up under a car is beyond the ken of normal journalists.

 

[slowmotion]

At best, the cyclist has just had his transport destroyed. At worst, he was put in mortal danger by 1.5 tonnes of moving metal. If you think the major issue is bad language then you are seriously lacking perspective.

We don't know the circumstances that caused his bike to be under the taxi, do we? For all I know, the taxi driver was being a homicidal maniac. For all I know, the cyclist was riding like a stupid prat. Who knows?
Leaping to condemn or defend either party is just daft. I can understand why the cyclist might be miffed about his bike being trashed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the cabbie was in any way to blame. Stop your knee jerks.

 

[robjh]

OK, let me give my non-grammarian explanation.

This sentence is normal, active voice:
The car ran over the bicycle.

Convert it to passive voice, where the thing doing the action becomes the object of the sentence.
The bicycle was run over by the car.

Just to add :
The bicycle was run over by the car = a type of passive that mentions the 'doer', in by the car

More often you just see things like
The bicycle was run over. ie. missing out the 'doer' as it's not seen as relevant.

After this,we leave the world of grammar, but we see in news articles this construction taken further.

The cyclist died after his bicycle collided with a HGV.

To a normal reader, that would suggest that the cyclist died from cycling into a (presumably stationary) lorry. Of course, that wouldn't usually result in a fatal injury. It would be more correct to say "The HGV collided with the cyclist". I don't know why they don't say this. Maybe it's legal team, as you "can't libel the dead".

To me, the line I quoted "The car came to a halt with the bicycle under it" seems to take this to the next level. The whole mystery of how a cycle might have ended up under a car is beyond the ken of normal journalists.

(again, just to add)
It's these kind of examples that many people refer to as 'passive' or 'passive voice', whereas in descriptions of grammar only the construtions in the first quote count. That's what we're all getting hot under the collar about.

 

[bonsaibilly]

So, firstly, your initial explanation is perfectly grammarian, and very clear. But as you correctly say, then we leave the world of grammar. But it's not correct to say that we then see this construction taken further, because it isn't the same construction at all.

That is where I find myself trying to understand the common law usage of the term "passive" when applied to writing or articles in the press etc. Things that are grammatically passive or active are definably so whereas things that are claimed to be "active" or "passive" accounts of events are by definition subjective and usually haven't got all the text or context.

I used to struggle with this in my former life as a writer and frequent flyer on American creative writing websites, where I was forever instructed to write "actively" and to avoid "passive writing" - which had sweet f.a. to do with passive or active voice but was based entirely on well meaning but completely subjective and unqualified definitions of what actually constituted active or passive writing. I came to the conclusion, and it seemed to be supported by grammatical rules, usage and common sense, that a lot of people who didn't know enough to give advice, gave the advice anyway.

Voice is very simple. @jefmcg explained it above and anything else is made-up. Although there ought to be a subjunctive voice in English if there isn't already, would that there were. BB

 

[robjh]

........ on American creative writing websites, where I was forever instructed to write "actively" and to avoid "passive writing" - which had sweet f.a. to do with passive or active voice but was based entirely on well meaning but completely subjective and unqualified definitions of what actually constituted active or passive writing. I came to the conclusion, and it seemed to be supported by grammatical rules, usage and common sense, that a lot of people who didn't know enough to give advice, gave the advice anyway.

^ This, precisely.

 

[slowmotion]

So, firstly, your initial explanation is perfectly grammarian, and very clear. But as you correctly say, then we leave the world of grammar. But it's not correct to say that we then see this construction taken further, because it isn't the same construction at all.

That is where I find myself trying to understand the common law usage of the term "passive" when applied to writing or articles in the press etc. Things that are grammatically passive or active are definably so whereas things that are claimed to be "active" or "passive" accounts of events are by definition subjective and usually haven't got all the text or context.

I used to struggle with this in my former life as a writer and frequent flyer on American creative writing websites, where I was forever instructed to write "actively" and to avoid "passive writing" - which had sweet f.a. to do with passive or active voice but was based entirely on well meaning but completely subjective and unqualified definitions of what actually constituted active or passive writing. I came to the conclusion, and it seemed to be supported by grammatical rules, usage and common sense, that a lot of people who didn't know enough to give advice, gave the advice anyway.

Voice is very simple. @jefmcg explained it above and anything else is made-up. Although there ought to be a subjunctive voice in English if there isn't already, would that there were. BB

Don't you think that the Mail could have used a gerundive for the trashing of the bike?

 

[slowmotion]

How about a zeugma for the distraught cyclist? "He went home in a minicab and a temper"?

 

[bonsaibilly]

Oxymoron: "the cyclist took some responsibility."

 

[RichardB]

Although there ought to be a subjunctive voice in English if there isn't already, would that there were. BB

There is, but it is a 'mood', not a 'voice'. 'If I were', 'had you been' ect ect. HTH