The Grammar of English Grammars · Chapter 129III. Form of Passive Verbs
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
Passive verbs, in English, are always of a compound form; being made from active-transitive verbs, by adding the Perfect Participle to the auxiliary verb BE, through all its changes: thus from the active-transitive verb love, is formed the passive verb be loved.
The regular passive verb BE LOVED, conjugated affirmatively.
PRINCIPAL PARTS or THE ACTIVE VERB.
Present. Preterit. Imp. Participle. Perf. Participle.
Love. Loved. Loving. Loved.
INFINITIVE MOOD. PRESENT TENSE. To be loved.
PERFECT TENSE. To have been loved.
PRESENT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I am loved, 1. We are loved, 2. Thou art loved, 2. You are loved, 3. He is loved; 3. They are loved.
IMPERFECT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I was loved, 1. We were loved, 2. Thou wast loved, 2. You were loved, 3. He was loved; 3. They were loved.
PERFECT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I have been loved, 1. We have been loved, 2. Thou hast been loved, 2. You have been loved, 3. He has been loved; 3. They have been loved.
PLUPERFECT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I had been loved, 1. We had been loved, 2. Thou hadst been loved, 2. You had been loved, 3. He had been loved; 3. They had been loved.
FIRST-FUTURE TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I shall be loved, 1. We shall be loved, 2. Thou wilt be loved, 2. You will be loved, 3. He will be loved; 3. They will be loved.
SECOND-FUTURE TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I shall have been loved, 1. We shall have been loved, 2. Thou wilt have been loved, 2. You will have been loved, 3. He will have been loved; 3. They will have been loved.
PRESENT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I may be loved, 1. We may be loved, 2. Thou mayst be loved, 2. You may be loved, 3. He may be loved; 3. They may be loved.
IMPERFECT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I might be loved, 1. We might be loved, 2. Thou mightst be loved, 2. You might be loved, 3. He might be loved; 3. They might be loved.
PERFECT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I may have been loved, 1. We may have been loved, 2. Thou mayst have been loved, 2. You may have been loved, 3. He may have been loved; 3. They may have been loved.
Singular. Plural. 1. I might have been loved, 1. We might have been loved, 2. Thou mightst have been loved, 2. You might have been loved, 3. He might have been loved; 3. They might have been loved.
Singular. Plural. 1. If I be loved, 1. If we be loved, 2. If thou be loved, 2. If you be loved, 3. If he be loved; 3. If they be loved.
Singular. Plural. 1. If I were loved, 1. If we were loved, 2. If thou were loved, 2. If you were loved, 3. If he were loved; 3. If they were loved.
Singular. 2. Be [thou] loved, or Do thou be loved; Plural. 2. Be [ye or you] loved, or Do you be loved.
1. The Imperfect. 2. The Perfect. 3. The Preperfect. Being loved. Loved. Having been loved.
FAMILIAR FORM WITH 'THOU.' NOTE.—In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou art loved, Thou was loved, Thou hast been loved, Thou had been loved, Thou shall or will be loved, Thou shall or will have been loved. POT. Thou may, can, or must be loved; Thou might, could, would, or should be loved; Thou may, can, or must have been loved; Thou might, could, would, or should have been loved. SUBJ. If thou be loved, If thou were loved. IMP. Be [thou] loved, or Do thou be loved.
OBS. 1.—A few active-intransitive verbs, that signify mere motion, change of place, or change of condition, may be put into this form, with a neuter signification; making not passive but neuter verbs, which express nothing more than the state which results from the change: as, "I am come."—"She is gone."—"He is risen."—"They are fallen." These are what Dr. Johnson and some others call "neuter passives;" a name which never was very proper, and for which we have no frequent use.
OBS. 2.—Most neuter verbs of the passive form, such as, "am grown, art become, is lain, are flown, are vanished, are departed, was sat, were arrived," may now be considered errors of conjugation, or perhaps of syntax. In the verb, to be mistaken, there is an irregularity which ought to be particularly noticed. When applied to persons, this verb is commonly taken in a neuter sense, and signifies, to be in error, to be wrong; as, "I am mistaken, thou art mistaken, he is mistake." But, when used of things, it is a proper passive verb, and signifies, to be misunderstood, or to be taken wrong; as, "The sense of the passage is mistaken; that is, not rightly understood." See Webster's Dict., w. Mistaken. "I have known a shadow across a brook to be mistaken for a footbridge."
OBS. 3.—Passive verbs may be easily distinguished from neuter verbs of the same form, by a reference to the agent or instrument, common to the former class, but not to the latter. This frequently is, and always may be, expressed after passive verbs; but never is, and never can be, expressed after neuter verbs: as, "The thief has been caught by the officer."— "Pens are made with a knife." Here the verbs are passive; but, "I am not yet ascended," (John, xx, 17,) is not passive, because it does not convey the idea of being ascended by some one's agency.
OBS. 4.—Our ancient writers, after the manner of the French, very frequently employed this mode of conjugation in a neuter sense; but, with a very few exceptions, present usage is clearly in favour of the auxiliary have in preference to be, whenever the verb formed with the perfect participle is not passive; as, "They have arrived,"—not, "They are arrived." Hence such examples as the following, are not now good English: "All these reasons are now ceased."—Butler's Analogy, p. 157. Say, "have now ceased." "Whether he were not got beyond the reach of his faculties."—Ib., p. 158. Say, "had not got." "Which is now grown wholly obsolete."—Churchill's Gram., p. 330. Say, "has now grown." "And when he was entered into a ship."—Bible. Say, "had entered."— "What is become of decency and virtue?"—Murray's Key, p. 196. Say, "has become."
OBS. 5.—Dr. Priestley says, "It seems not to have been determined by the English grammarians, whether the passive participles of verbs neuter require the auxiliary am or have before them. The French, in this case, confine themselves strictly to the former. 'What has become of national liberty?' Hume's History, Vol. 6. p. 254. The French would say, what is become; and, in this instance, perhaps, with more propriety."— Priestley's Gram., p. 128. It is no marvel that those writers who have not rightly made up their minds upon this point of English grammar, should consequently fall into many mistakes. The perfect participle of a neuter verb is not "passive," as the doctor seems to suppose it to be; and the mode of conjugation which he here inclines to prefer, is a mere Gallicism, which is fast wearing out from our language, and is even now but little countenanced by good writers.
OBS. 6.—There are a few verbs of the passive form which seem to imply that a person's own mind is the agent that actuates him; as, "The editor is rejoiced to think," &c.—Juvenile Keepsake. "I am resolved what to do."—Luke, xvi, 4. "He was resolved on going to the city to reside."—Comly's Gram., p. 114. "James was resolved not to indulge himself."—Murray's Key, ii, 220. "He is inclined to go."—"He is determined to go."—"He is bent on going." These are properly passive verbs, notwithstanding there are active forms which are nearly equivalent to most of them; as, "The editor rejoices to think."—"I know what to do."—"He had resolved on going."—"James resolved not to indulge himself." So in the phrase, "I am ashamed to beg," we seem to have a passive verb of this sort; but, the verb to ashame being now obsolete, ashamed is commonly reckoned an adjective. Yet we cannot put it before a noun, after the usual manner of adjectives. To be indebted, is an other expression of the same kind. In the following example, "am remember'd" is used for do remember, and, in my opinion, inaccurately:
"He said mine eyes were black, and my hair black; And, now I am remember'd, scorn'd at me."—Shakspeare.
A verb is conjugated negatively, by placing the adverb not after it, or after the first auxiliary; but the infinitive and participles take the negative first: as, Not to love, Not to have loved; Not loving, Not loved, Not having loved.
IND. I love not, or I do not love; I loved not, or I did not love; I have not loved; I had not loved; I shall not, or will not, love; I shall not, or will not, have loved. POT. I may, can, or must not love; I might, could, would, or should not love; I may, can, or must not have loved; I might, could, would, or should not have loved, SUBJ. If I love not, If I loved not.
SOLEMN STYLE:—IND. Thou lovest not, or Thou dost not love; Thou lovedst not, or Thou didst not love; Thou hast not loved; Thou hadst not loved; Thou shalt not, or wilt not, love; Thou shalt not, or wilt not, have loved. POT. Thou mayst, canst, or must not love; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst not love; Thou mayst, canst, or must not have loved; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst not have loved. SUBJ. If thou love not, If thou loved not. IMP. Love [thou] not, or Do thou not love.
FAMILIAR STYLE:—IND. Thou lov'st not, or Thou dost not love; Thou loved not, or Thou did not love; Thou hast not loved; Thou had not loved; Thou shall not, or will not, love; Thou shall not, or will not, have loved. POT. Thou may, can, or must not love; Thou might, could, would, or should not love; Thou may, can, or must not have loved; Thou might, could, would, or should not have loved. SUBJ. If thou love not, If thou loved not. IMP. Love [thou] not, or Do [thou] not love.
IND. He loves not, or He does not love; He loved not, or He did not love; He has not loved; He had not loved; He shall not, or will not, love; He shall not, or will not, have loved. POT. He may, can, or must not love; He might, could, would, or should not love; He may, can, or must not have loved; He might, could, would, or should not have loved. SUBJ. If he love not, If he loved not.
A verb is conjugated interrogatively, in the indicative and potential moods, by placing the nominative after it, or after the first auxiliary: as,
IND. Love I? or Do I love? Loved I? or Did I love? Have I loved? Had I loved? Shall I love? Shall I have loved? POT. May, can, or must I love? Might, could, would, or should I love? May, can, or must I have loved? Might, could, would, or should I have loved?
SOLEMN STYLE:—IND. Lovest thou? or Dost thou love? Lovedst thou? or Didst thou love? Hast thou loved? Hadst thou loved? Wilt thou love? Wilt thou have loved? POT. Mayst, canst, or must thou love? Mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst thou love? Mayst, canst, or must thou have loved? Mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst thou have loved?
FAMILIAR STYLE:—IND. Lov'st thou? or Dost thou love? Loved thou? or Did thou love? Hast thou loved? Had thou loved? Will thou love? Will thou have loved? POT. May, can, or must thou love? Might, could, would, or should thou love? May, can, or must thou have loved? Might, could, would, or should thou have loved?
IND. Loves he? or Does he love? Loved he? or Did he love? Has he loved? Had he loved? Shall or will he love? Will he have loved? POT. May, can, or must he love? Might, could, would, or should he love? May, can, or must he have loved? Might, could, would, or should he have loved?
A verb is conjugated interrogatively and negatively, in the indicative and potential moods, by placing the nominative and the adverb not after the verb, or after the first auxiliary: as,
IND. Love we not? or Do we not love? Loved we not? or Did we not love? Have we not loved? Had we not loved? Shall we not love? Shall we not have loved? POT. May, can, or must we not love? Might, could, would, or should we not love? May, can, or must we not have loved? Might, could, would, or should we not have loved?
IND. See ye not? or Do you not see? Saw ye not? or Did you not see? Have you not seen? Had you not seen? Will you not see? Will you not have seen? POT. May, can, or must you not see? Might, could, would, or should you not see? May, can, or must you not have seen? Might, could, would, or should you not have seen?
IND. Are they not loved? Were they not loved? Have they not been loved? Had they not been loved? Shall or will they not be loved? Will they not have been loved? May, can, or must they not be loved? Might, could, would, or should they not be loved? May, can, or must they not have been loved? Might, could, would, or should they not have been loved?
OBS. 1.—In a familiar question or negation, the compound or auxiliary form of the verb is, in general, preferable to the simple: as, "No man lives to purpose, who does not live for posterity."—Dr. Wayland. It is indeed so much more common, as to seem the only proper mode of expression: as, "Do I say these things as a man?"—"Do you think that we excuse ourselves?"—"Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?"—"Dost thou revile?" &c. But in the solemn or the poetic style, though either may be used, the simple form is more dignified, and perhaps more graceful: as, "Say I these things as a man?"—1 Cor., ix, 8. "Think ye that we excuse ourselves?"—2 Cor., xii, 19. "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"—1 Cor., v, 6. "Revilest thou God's high priest?"—Acts. "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets?"—Ib. "Understandest thou what thou readest?"—Ib. "Of whom speaketh the prophet this?"—Id. "And the man of God said, Where fell it?"—2 Kings, vi, 6.
"What! heard ye not of lowland war?"—Sir W. Scott, L. L.
"Seems he not, Malise, like a ghost?"—Id., L. of Lake.
"Where thinkst thou he is now? Stands he, or sits he? Or does he walk? or is he on his horse?"—Shak., Ant. and Cleop.
OBS. 2.—In interrogative sentences, the auxiliaries shall and will are not always capable of being applied to the different persons agreeably to their use in simple declarations: thus, "Will I go?" is a question which there never can be any occasion to ask in its literal sense; because none knows better than I, what my will or wish is. But "Shall I go?" may properly be asked; because shall here refers to duty, and asks to know what is agreeable to the will of an other. In questions, the first person generally requires shall; the second, will; the third admits of both: but, in the second-future, the third, used interrogatively, seems to require will only. Yet, in that figurative kind of interrogation which is sometimes used to declare a negative, there may be occasional exceptions to these principles; as, "Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?"—Psalms, 1, 13. That is, I will not eat, &c.
OBS. 3.—Cannot is not properly one word, but two: in parsing, the adverb must be taken separately, and the auxiliary be explained with its principal. When power is denied, can and not are now generally united—perhaps in order to prevent ambiguity; as, "I cannot go." But when the power is affirmed, and something else is denied, the words are written separately; as, "The Christian apologist can not merely expose the utter baseness of the infidel assertion, but he has positive ground for erecting an opposite and confronting assertion in its place."—Dr. Chalmers. The junction of these terms, however, is not of much importance to the sense; and, as it is plainly contrary to analogy, some writers,—(as Dr. Webster, in his late or "improved" works; Dr. Bullions, in his; Prof. W. C. Fowler, in his new "English Grammar," 8vo; R. C. Trench, in his "Study of Words;" T. S. Pinneo, in his "revised" grammars; J. R. Chandler, W. S. Cardell, O. B. Peirce,—) always separate them. And, indeed, why should we write, "I cannot go, Thou canst not go, He cannot go?" Apart from the custom, we have just as good reason to join not to canst as to can; and sometimes its union with the latter is a gross error: as, "He cannot only make a way to escape, but with the injunction to duty can infuse the power to perform."—Maturin's Sermons, p. 287. The fear of ambiguity never prevents us from disjoining can and not whenever we wish to put a word between them: as, "Though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it."—Jeremiah, v, 22. "Which then I can resist not."—Byron's Manfred, p. 1.
"Can I not mountain maiden spy, But she must bear the Douglas eye?"—Scott.
OBS. 4.—In negative questions, the adverb not is sometimes placed before the nominative, and sometimes after it: as, "Told not I thee?"—Numb., xxiii, 26. "Spake I not also to thy messengers?"—Ib., xxiv, 12. "Cannot I do with you as this potter?"—Jer., xviii, 6. "Art not thou a seer?"—2 Sam., xv, 27. "Did not Israel know?"—Rom., x, 19. "Have they not heard?"—Ib., 18. "Do not they blaspheme that worthy name?"—James, ii, 7. This adverb, like every other, should be placed where it will sound most agreeably, and best suit the sense. Dr. Priestley imagined that it could not properly come before the nominative. He says, "When the nominative case is put after the verb, on account of an interrogation, no other word should be interposed between them. [EXAMPLES:] 'May not we here say with Lucretius?'—Addison on Medals, p. 29. May we not say? 'Is not it he.' [?] Smollett's Voltaire, Vol 18, p. 152. Is it not he. [?]"—Priestley's Gram., p. 177.
OBS. 5.—In grave discourse, or in oratory, the adverb not is spoken as distinctly as other words; but, ordinarily, when placed before the nominative, it is rapidly slurred over in utterance and the o is not heard. In fact, it is generally (though inelegantly) contracted in familiar conversation, and joined to the auxiliary: as, IND. Don't they do it? Didn't they do it? Haven't they done it? Hadn't they done it? Shan't, or won't they do it? Won't they have done it? POT. Mayn't, can't, or mustn't they do it? Mightn't, couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't they do it? Mayn't, can't, or mustn't they have done it? Mightn't, couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't they have done it?
OBS. 6.—Well-educated people commonly utter their words with more distinctness and fullness than the vulgar, yet without adopting ordinarily the long-drawn syllables of poets and orators, or the solemn phraseology of preachers and prophets. Whatever may be thought of the grammatical propriety of such contractions as the foregoing, no one who has ever observed how the English language is usually spoken, will doubt their commonness, or their antiquity. And it may be observed, that, in the use of these forms, the distinction of persons and numbers in the verb, is almost, if not entirely, dropped. Thus don't is used for dost not or does not, as properly as for do not; and, "Thou can't do it, or shan't do it," is as good English as, "He can't do it, or shan't do it." Will, according to Webster, was anciently written woll: hence won't acquired the o, which is long in Walker's orthoëpy. Haven't, which cannot be used for has not or hast not, is still further contracted by the vulgar, and spoken ha'nt, which serves for all three. These forms are sometimes found in books; as, "WONT, a contraction of woll not, that is, will not."—Webster's Dict. "HA'NT, a contraction of have not or has not."—Id. "WONT, (w=ont or w~unt,) A contraction of would not:— used for will not."—Worcester's Dict. "HAN'T, (hänt or h=ant,) A vulgar contraction for has not, or have not."—Id. In the writing of such contractions, the apostrophe is not always used; though some think it necessary for distinction's sake: as, "Which is equivalent, because what can't be done won't be done."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 312.