3 ms·

A response for each of you points, not really for starting an argument, but for stating my view of the matter. 1) The language allows you to emphasise either t

by gkya 10y ago

A response for each of you points, not really for starting an argument, but for stating my view of the matter. 1) The language allows you to emphasise either the object or the subject. Either way, though, both a passive and an active version of a given sentence can hide or tell some information equally. Compare: The pizza was eaten. Somebody ate the pizza. (The amount of info these sentences give is practically equivalent.) It's more about the author, whether or not he wants to tell something to the reader. 2) Passive need not be formal in all its uses, nor does every text need be formal and accessible, and a formal text is not necessarily inaccessible. 3) That's a crazy nitpicking and a silly exaggeration. Copula-heavy text is boring to read, but while the copula verb and the auxiliary verb for passive forms are the same (to be), in its second role, it is not also acting as a copula. The verb 'to be' is not the copula, but one of its uses is as the copula. So if one wants to give up on copula, however mad that may be, he need not give up on all the uses of the verb to be. That said, if it is an artistic choice to avoid copula to the extent possible, I can't really criticise that. It can't be affirmed as a general rule though. Edit: Oh, also, in a sentence like "Bob seems terrible.", 'to seem' is basically a copula. Copula is basically any verb that links the subject to a predicative.

schoen 10y ago
> A response for each of you points, not really for starting an argument, but for stating my view of the matter. Thanks for responding. > [...] while the copula verb and the auxiliary verb for passive forms are the same (to be), in its second role, it is not also acting as a copula. The verb 'to be' is not the copula, but one of its uses is as the copula. So if one wants to give up on copula, however mad that may be, he need not give up on all the uses of the verb to be. I agree that E-Prime users should try to distinguish between copulative and non-copulative uses of "to be" and that passives are non-copulative. By mentioning E-Prime, I was just trying to draw an analogy with another way of restricting language in the name of "taking responsibility". > Edit: Oh, also, in a sentence like "Bob seems terrible.", 'to seem' is basically a copula. Copula is basically any verb that links the subject to a predicative. According to E-Prime users, using "seems" instead of "is" could typically make the scope and basis for disagreements clearer (because then you can talk more readily about to whom something seems a certain way?).

by gkya 10y ago

schoen 10y ago

> A response for each of you points, not really for starting an argument, but for stating my view of the matter. Thanks for responding. > [...] while the copula verb and the auxiliary verb for passive forms are the same (to be), in its second role, it is not also acting as a copula. The verb 'to be' is not the copula, but one of its uses is as the copula. So if one wants to give up on copula, however mad that may be, he need not give up on all the uses of the verb to be. I agree that E-Prime users should try to distinguish between copulative and non-copulative uses of "to be" and that passives are non-copulative. By mentioning E-Prime, I was just trying to draw an analogy with another way of restricting language in the name of "taking responsibility". > Edit: Oh, also, in a sentence like "Bob seems terrible.", 'to seem' is basically a copula. Copula is basically any verb that links the subject to a predicative. According to E-Prime users, using "seems" instead of "is" could typically make the scope and basis for disagreements clearer (because then you can talk more readily about to whom something seems a certain way?).