Active or Passive voice?

[Madhuri]

'Set the required parameters.'

I am told that this sentence is passive. Is it?

Thanks :)

[billl]

It is an imperative. (A command). It is neither active nor passive, as far as I know.


ACTIVE:
I set the parameters.

PASSIVE:
The parameters were set by me.


Using the imperative (giving a command) doesn't fall into either of those categories, as far as I know. If it does, well, it is just a technicality.

[Madhuri]

As far as I understand, it is not passive. I agree with your explanation. But, it came from someone who is considered a grammar guru. I can't figure out what in this sentence makes it passive. And, no, I can't ask the person, as, I am expected to know this.

Thanks for the help, bill. :)

[The Comedian]

It's active. And bill is mostly right. It's in the imperative case. In the imperative case, the subject of the sentence is an implied "you".

I added the implied you to show you what I mean. Here's your sentence:

(You) set the required parameters.

For illustration purposes, you could parallel this with the other English point-of-views:

"I set the required parameters".

"You set the required parameters".

"He/she set the required parameters".

In active voice English the subject (the implied "you") needs to perform the action of the verb "set". This sentence meets these parameters. ;)

[BienvenuJDC]

I agree with The Comedian's assessment totally. I just have one question. In the past I have been told that I must correct passive voice statements to active voice. Why do some people not like passive voice?

[Madhuri]

It's active. And bill is mostly right. It's in the imperative case. In the imperative case, the subject of the sentence is an implied "you".

I added the implied you to show you what I mean. Here's your sentence:

(You) set the required parameters.

For illustration purposes, you could parallel this with the other English point-of-views:

"I set the required parameters".

"You set the required parameters".

"He/she set the required parameters".

In active voice English the subject (the implied "you") needs to perform the action of the verb "set". This sentence meets these parameters. ;)

You are right. In this case the subject is 'you' as that 'you' has to perform a certain action. So the implied subject 'you' is performing the action 'set' (and not receiving it), which makes this sentence active.

Thanks for the explanation, Comedian. :)


I agree with The Comedian's assessment totally. I just have one question. In the past I have been told that I must correct passive voice statements to active voice. Why do some people not like passive voice?

It is because active voice is more direct and easy to understand, especially when you are writing a help/user manual.

A user wants a quick solution to a problem, and if they have to read a lot of words and spend time in comprehending what the manual is saying, then, the purpose of the help is defeated and the user would have lost interest. They won't spend more than a couple of minutes before calling the helpline.

This is considering only one scenario.

[The Comedian]

I agree with The Comedian's assessment totally. I just have one question. In the past I have been told that I must correct passive voice statements to active voice. Why do some people not like passive voice?

Passive voice is generally more wordy and less natural than the active voice.

For example. . . it could have been written by me as to whether the passive voice should be used in order to facilitate the removal of agency from English sentences.

^ a grammatically correct sentence that's slathered in passive voice.

Active version: I could have written that people sometimes use the passive voice to remove agency from English sentences.

^ same thing, written in the active voice.

What the hell is "removing agency"? A lot of times we need the passive voice to express an action with no known cause.

For example: The book was misplaced.

This sentence is in the passive voice because we don't know who lost that silly book.

Now that you're thoroughly asleep, I'll move on to proper comma use. . . .

Kidding!

[*Classic*Charm*]

Now that you're thoroughly asleep, I'll move on to proper comma use. . . .

Kidding!

OOH! Can you work on eliminating comma splices?! And then can we get rid of dangling prepositions!?!

(Grammar police, reporting for duty!! :blush:)

[billl]

Good work, Comedian! You are saluted.

[kasie]

As well as an implied 'you' in the Imperative tense, there's an implied 'should' or 'must': '(You should/must) Set the required parameters'.

We are having a lot of trouble with this in Welsh class at the moment - there's a way of saying 'You should...' in the sense of 'You ought to.../You must...' but the way the Conditional tense is used also lends itself to the translation of 'If you...then you should...' Those of us with a background of formal grammar lessons are having less trouble than the younger members of the class who missed out on that kind of teaching.

Comedian - I thought I was addicted to the use of commas but I have recently been reading an Elizabeth Bowen book, The Heat of the Day, written in 1949 and there are so many commas, separating so many subordinate clauses, I am having to go back and re-read many of them. It has made me aware of just how much formal writing has changed in the last sixty-odd years.

[Madhuri]

Thanks, kasie. It is a mandatory step, so, 'should/must' is also implied.

Thank you all for the help. :D

[Shalot]

oh I love this thread. Seriously. I wanted to add one more thing about passive voice.

Sometimes, I construct my statements in this manner to avoid saying who completed the action because I want to avoid the blame factor. I do this at work when I want to focus on what needs to be done in order to acheive the desired result. I don't want anyone to read my email and come away from it focusing on who messed up. I want the focus to be on what needs to happen and not who did it wrong to begin with.

[BienvenuJDC]

oh I love this thread. Seriously. I wanted to add one more thing about passive voice.

Sometimes, I construct my statements in this manner to avoid saying who completed the action because I want to avoid the blame factor. I do this at work when I want to focus on what needs to be done in order to acheive the desired result. I don't want anyone to read my email and come away from it focusing on who messed up. I want the focus to be on what needs to happen and not who did it wrong to begin with.

Excellent point, Shalot! I agree with what The Comedian was saying, but there have been some teachers that took it to be an absolute rule that the passive was not correct to use. You have pointed out a great use of the passive voice, and how it can be important.

[MarkBastable]

In Our Mutual Friend, Dickens describes the London district of Holloway as

"...a suburban Sahara where tiles and bricks were burnt, bones were boiled, carpets were beat, rubbish was shot, dogs were fought, and dust was heaped by contractors."

That only works because of the use of the passive voice. It can't actually be recast in the active voice without spoiling the effect.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think this is a good thread. Maybe it should be extended to help out fellow grammar donuts like me? We could have a grammar corner where only fools don't fear to tread, or something. Really, I'm serious.

[The Comedian]

there have been some teachers that took it to be an absolute rule that the passive was not correct to use.

Sadly, you're right here Bien. However, I will say that, generally, the passive voice is overused ( ;) ) in the professions. While instances such as Shalot's thoughtful use of it frequently happen, there's a lot of passive-thick writing that needs to be set straight.

Oh, and just to defend those of my trade: sometimes, it's easier to teach a topic first as over-simplification (all passive voice is bad), and then as good judgment (sometimes it's effective, other times it's not). Why? Too often if you introduce a subject that's filled with "if this, then that", "if this other thing, then my might want to do this if these other two cases are present". . . . the skill of identifying linguistic patterns and then altering them to a different pattern (which builds the general skill of linguistic command) gets lost in a sea of uncertain contingencies.

So this might illustrate why good teachers will sometimes over-simply a language issue upon its introduction. We just want to get to a simple pattern like this:

1. identify the passive/active voice structures

2. change all passives into actives (for practice. . . . .like 3 on 2 drills for the basketball team)

3. Repeat. . .

THEN, hopefully, some students will ask (after they have developed the skill of identification and manipulation): "Are there some times when you might want to use the passive?"

4. "Ah! Good question young lass! Indeed there are. Can you come up with some cases where the passive might be handy?". . . . and so it goes.

[Madhuri]

Using the same thread to post another question:

Is there a difference in the usage of 'till' and 'until'?

[Scheherazade]

Using the same thread to post another question:

Is there a difference in the usage of 'till' and 'until'?http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-unt1.htm

[SleepyWitch]

about the passive: maybe he meant this:

Set the required parameters.(1) = Set the parameters that ARE REQUIRED.(2)

In sentence 1) required would be an adjective but it's not a very good example of a typical adjective because you cannot put 'very' in front of it. E.g. 'very nice' = OK, very required = NOPE. Also it cannot be put after 'is' or 'seems' without changing the meaning of the sentence. E.g. the nice lady - the lady seems nice; the required parameters, the parameters seem required :confused:

Sentence 2: ARE REQUIRED is a passive verb phrase in the relative clause. (The relative clause is the bit that starts with 'that'). That makes the relative clause passive, but not the whole sentence. For the whole sentence, the verb is still 'Set', which is an imperative, as others have said.

Maybe your grammar guru friend was referring to this. Because some theorists would argue that 'required' in sentence 1) is a transformation or something of 'that are required' (passive) and would say that the passive is still there although you can't see it. In my opinion, that's bollocks, but this kind of theory is taught widely.

[Madhuri]

Scher, thanks for the link. I had already read a similar explanation on the net, but was not sure if that was the right explanation.

Sleepy, thanks for the explanation. You do have a point there.