active vs. passive voice

[Susan W Gallagher]

Since when does using the passive voice turn a transitive verb intransitive?
"Wares" is still the (indirect) object of "displays" whether the sentence is
cast in passive or active voice.

This page
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/passive.htm
offers
<quote>Only transitive verbs (those that take objects) can be transformed
into passive constructions. Furthermore, active sentences containing certain
verbs cannot be transformed into passive structures. *To have* is the most
important of these verbs. We can say "He has a new car," but we cannot say
"A new car is had by him." We can say "Josefina lacked finesse," but we
cannot say "Finesse was lacked." </quote>

I've never seen it stated quite so clearly before, but it makes sense when
you think about it. Creating a passive construction involves removing the
subject from the sentence and moving the object into its place. Without an
object -- and you need a transitive verb to have an object -- you don't have
an entity to move into the subject's place. So yes, you need a transitive
verb to make a passive voice sentence.

-Sue Gallagher


On 3/28/08, Ned Bedinger <doc at edwordsmith.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> English doesn't reserve this facility only for foreign words. If I set
> up a display(n) of my wares at the Saturday flea market, I can also say
> (and be generally understood) that my wares are displayed(v,i) at the
> flea market. This usage and construction sounds right to my ear, and is
> just too commonly encountered to be a big dumb mistake made with a
> transitive verb. English (the living language) seems to allow it.
>
> Always, IMHO.
>
>