Rhodopeius wrote:I think you mean the active voice. Voice is a principle of verbs. It lets us know whether the subject is the actor or the recipient of the action.
Caesar kills. Active voice.
Caesar is killed. Passive voice.
In Latin, the passive voice is expressed not by using the auxiliary verb "is" as we do in English, but by conjugating the verb differently.
Caesar interficit. Active.
Caesar interficitur. Passive.
Rhodopeius wrote:Caesar interficit. Active.
Caesar interficitur. Passive.
james bath wrote:
Ah...! So this might actually clear up a small confusion in my own mind. The passive voice does not change the nominative of a sentence into an accusative or a dative?
If the same sentence is changed from active to passive, then the cases do change:
Active: Brutus et Cassius Caesarem interfecerunt. "Brutus and Cassius killed Caesar.
Passive: Caesar a Bruto et Cassio interfectus est. "Caesar was killed by Brutus and Cassius."
The (nominative) subject of the active sentence is put in a prepositional phrase (a/ab + the ablative). The (accusative) object of the active sentence becomes the (nominative) subject of the passive sentence.
Often the agent (the former subject of the active sentence) is not expressed in a passive sentence:
Caesar interfectus est. "Caesar was killed."
Or there will be an instrument expressed in the ablative case (i.e., the thing by means of which the action was done):
Caesar non sagittis Gallorum sed sicis et gladiis civium interfectus est. "Caesar was killed not by the arrows of the Gauls, but by the daggers and swords of citizens."
Clearer, Errorant, to someone from the North, for whom daily existence is a struggle with the weather. Less clear for an English speaker who lives nearer the Equator. Grounds for a theory there! Take the passive "to be seen". For a Canadian to be seen, leaving the house is often more of an ordeal.Essorant wrote:...the terms deedly for "active" and throingly for "passive" which are clearer terms for an English speaker.
nearer the Equator
I'm with you a 100%, by the way, on using less dull language when it doesn't confuse, but I myself wouldn't insist on archaic usages. Without explanation, that will confuse.
However, you seem to be suggesting that the very word "nearer" is incorrect English, because "near" is itself a comparative. Are you sure you want to say that, if indeed that is what you are saying?
Oxford English Dictionary wrote:near, adv.1 (and prep.1)
I. In purely adverbial use. Freq. with noun or noun phrase as complement (in dative in Old English). (When used with complement near can be analysed as a preposition.)
1. a. With a verb of motion: nearer or closer (to a place, point, or person)...
b. near and near: nearer and nearer. Also fig...
2. a. At a nearer distance, with a smaller interval, in space or time...
b. far and near [see comparative forms s.v. FAR adv.]: further (off) and nearer (at hand). Cf. FAR adv. 1b...
c. fig. More closely; more strictly...
II. In predicative use, usually after the verb to be. Freq. with noun or noun phrase as complement (in dative in Old English) or to.
3. Nearer in space or time; nearer at hand. Also in proverbial phrases...
4. Nearer in kinship or relationship...
5. Nearer to one's end or purpose. Only in negative and interrogative clauses, esp. never the near. (Very common in the late 16th and early 17th cent.) In later use only Eng. regional.
a. With personal subject.
For a possible earlier isolated example of this use, not in the negative, cf. quot. eOE.
I see. You will not accept it's correctness in contemporary usage (over the last 400 years). OK. No problem. That's even more extreme than introducing archaisms. But I understand. Everything is relative and, from your perspective, I teased you and you are teasing me. Nice!Essorant wrote:The dictionary accepts quite a few other incorrect things as well.
I am discombobulated by thy lak of swink. Thou art dansing to the obstreperous tintinnabulations of thine own woyce. For "swink" is of very deed in OED. I propose a deedly ende to suich floccinaucinihilipilification!Essorant wrote:while a word such as swink, a native word of the English language, is forsaken and treated as if it is a word from another planet.
You will not accept it's correctness in contemporary usage (over the last 400 years).
Everything is relative...
I am discombobulated by thy lak of swink. Thou art dansing to the obstreperous tintinnabulations of thine own woyce. For "swink" is of very deed in OED. I propose a deedly ende to suich floccinaucinihilipilification!
Damoetas wrote:Help, Essorant!
I went to a bar last night and tried talking to some girls, using only correct English words like you suggest. But they seemed uncomfortable and wouldn't give me their phone numbers, and the bartender called a cab for me when I wasn't even ready to leave yet.... I thought, "No worries, they're just the ignorant masses," so today I decided to go hear a visiting lecturer at my university. But when I asked a question in the Q&A time, he snickered and answered my question in a patronizing tone; I think he thought I was a bum who had wandered in off the street.... And when everyone was mingling over wine and cheese afterwards, no one would talk to me!
So I'm starting to think that language might have a social dimension. I was so persuaded by your arguments about the correct meaning of words... But I'm afraid that the opinions of the 500 million English speakers who are alive today might make more of an impact than the opinions of people who lived before the Norman conquest.... What should I do?
As for foreign words, English itself must qualify as a foreign language unless you spring from West Germanic stock, if you imagine linguistic purity exists somewhere
Essorant wrote:"Everything is relative..." If we were in the philosophy forum I would make muchel ado with that.
You are disparaging a majority opinion that says "nearer" is good English by judging English today against a standard of Old English, or Anglo-Saxon, despite understanding the word "nearer" and the reasons why people use it.
As for foreign words, you write like there is one dialect in English. There are many dialects in English today and there were in the past, and a good dictionary such as OED attempts to acknowledge them rather than promote only one.
You write as if antiquity and pedigree gives authority to words. I disagree. Usage gives authority, and usage is always relative to groups (Damoetas's social dimension). Groups change and the authority changes in time. Believe that some Anglo Saxons were moaning about the introduction into their language of certain "foreign" words that we imagine today are "pure" Anglo Saxon because the historical record is imperfect. Linguistic purity and meaning are all relative—to groups that change in time and place, and groups within groups! New words are introduced into a language by and large because they are useful. When that happens, they are no longer foreign. They have linguistic citizenship!! Are you less Canadian if your distant ancestors weren't born in Canada?
Essorant wrote:Latin is Latin not English and English is English, not Latin. English-speakers may use the Latin words labor and doctor and heaps of other Latin words, but those words are still not English anymore than you are I.
Do you see the racial implications in the things you say, Essorant? You seem to say that only words that come from the dialects of Angles, Saxons and Jutes may count as true English words today, but not words from anybody else.
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/engol-0-X.html wrote:...more than 80 percent of the thousand most common words in modern English come from Old English.
Essorant wrote:English is a member too, distinct from other members such as Latin, Greek, etc, even though it belongs to the same "family"
Essorant wrote:Even those that know better usually don't direct English-speakers to make such a distinction.
Essorant wrote:English is its own language and words/forms distinct from those of other language. And that is a very important distinction that people are becoming more and more ignorant of these days. That is not linguistic purity, but just distinguishing one language from another, just as we distinguish one person from another....
I don't have any problem with people using foreign words, but I do think there is a problem when they no longer make any distinction of those words being foreign, but ignorantly call everything and anything "English". Yes, it is much easier to do, and the majority may do it, but that doesn't make it right....
I don't mean antiquity and pedigree gives all the authority. But a language as old as English is one whose past determines it more than its present. English is over 1500 years old. Its past is the first and foremost part and what gave the largest contribution to the language, and established it long before we came along, therefore indeed, it does have much more authority than we do. We don't get to use the language anyway we want to, for the language is already established by the strength of the ages behind it and that in fact is what keeps it strong....
Damoetas wrote:What do you mean "we don't get to use the language any way we want to" -- who is going to stop us? How do the ancient Anglo-Saxons have "authority" over us? Is it some kind of moral authority that "ought to" restrain us?
So you didn't like my suggestion that naturalization is a process that applies to words as it does to people?
Surely British doctors foreign-trained in medicine perform very skillfully. Similarly, practitioners just British-trained cure people quite effectively. Equally, take different students getting university degrees,—imagine nursing, dentistry, literature, journalism, science, engineering subject areas.
Essorant wrote:But linguistic Englishness however is inherently planted in only a specific dialectic group of words/forms that have distinct shapes, sounds, grammar and etymology, differentiating them from words of other languages.
But WHY is it important to keep the words distinct? Why is it important to distinguish one language from another?
And what does it mean for a language to be "strong"? Can you give some examples of strong and weak languages?
What do you mean "we don't get to use the language any way we want to" -- who is going to stop us? How do the ancient Anglo-Saxons have "authority" over us?