I’m editing a grammar book that claims that in the passive voice, when you have Subject + seen/ heard + to verb.
For example: “He was seen to go out with Mary by us.” / “She is heard to play the violin in the living room by me.”
I am dead set that this is wrong and it should be “He was seen going out with Mary…”
However, I need evidence to back up my claim. Does anyone know of any good grammar references online for a specific question such as this? It’s been hard finding something so specific.
I think the first one might just be possible. The difference between it and what you suggest being that your offering would imply that they were watched during the act itself, whereas the original given example is talking about the fact that they went out only (erm… can you see what I mean? I know it’s badly explained). The second given example sounds like arse though. Actually the first one still sounds like arse, but I think it might be possible (so I guess following the same rules, the second might actually exist too). They both sound like arse though (did I mention that already?)
[quote=“zoubetty”]I’m editing a grammar book that claims that in the passive voice, when you have Subject + seen/ heard + to verb.
For example: “He was seen to go out with Mary by us.” / “She is heard to play the violin in the living room by me.”
I am dead set that this is wrong and it should be “He was seen going out with Mary…”
However, I need evidence to back up my claim. Does anyone know of any good grammar references online for a specific question such as this? It’s been hard finding something so specific.
Thanks![/quote]
Maybe you could use these in police reports. In the first sentence, I think the problem is not the grammatical form, althought it’s unclear why you would use a passive and then add ‘by us’ as the agent; that sounds stupid. Why would you use a passive if you are the agent in this particular sentence? The question about whether to use the infinitive or not isn’t important.
The second is more problematic. The present ‘is’ suggests a routine action rather than a one off event. A passive to describe a routine action is generally not appropriate, unless you are describing how something operates. I’m sure there are other situations, but I can’t think of a meaningful context for this sentence at all.
Not sure about online grammar resources. When I need to do some research, I concordance it. it won’t give you rules, but it will give you evidence for what you know is ‘correct’.
both those examples sound like ultra-Chinglish to me. For one thing, I can’t see using “by me” or “by us” like that. Anyway, that rule refers to a pattern used in formal contexts such as newspaper headlines, as a quick web search will show. if like i did, you type ‘“seen to”’ into google the first result is illuminating, it’s a bbc article with the headline “Wild Gorillas Seen to Use Tools” yet with the opening sentence being “Gorillas have been seen for the first time using simple tools to perform tasks in the wild, researchers say.” It’s simply normal to use verb+ing after see/hear/watch… in most contexts. One difference that is interesting is that you can often use a bare infinitive after see/hear “I saw him take the money” but not in the passive.
I agree, but I think if you were to approach it from a “She is often heard to play the violin in the living room by me.” angle, then it just might work.
I also agree about “by us” being totally unnecessary though. It does sound like arse. Gramatically incorrect though? That’s another question.
It’s down to why you use the passive in the first place. If you add ‘by me’, it makes the use of the passive superfluous, generally. Why not use the active voice?
Yup, the agent can be added to a passive sentence, but what function does ‘by me’ have? If anything, it would draw attention to the agent because it’s so rarely used, in this sentence, anyway.
I may be talking rubbish, though, the cold air is making my brain shrink.
[quote=“Buttercup”]Yup, the agent can be added to a passive sentence, but what function does ‘by me’ have? If anything, it would draw attention to the agent because it’s so rarely used, in this sentence, anyway.
I may be talking rubbish, though, the cold air is making my brain shrink.[/quote]
Nah, I agree. The “by me” is, as you posh Englanders say, “superfluous” (nobody in Norn Iron would ever say that word, for fear of getting a kicking). And that’s part of the reason why it sounds like arse, but again, that doesn’t necessarily mean it breaks grammar rules, just sounds like arse, that’s all.
If you changed the example sentence to something like:
She is often heard to play the violin in the living room by strangers.
it would make the sentence much more palatable. But I agree with the OP that it doesn’t sound natural. At best it could be an example of stilted speech.
HOWEVER:
If you use “seen to”, “known to”, or “heard to” to mean “reportedly” it could be alright.
She has been heard to take in strange animals.
He has been seen to act strangely at times.
They have been known to start fights for no reason… etc.
Including the agent in these, though, completely ruins the point of using the structure (which is to distance the speaker from making the judgement).
[quote=“zoubetty”]I’m editing a grammar book that claims that in the passive voice, when you have Subject + seen/ heard + to verb.
For example: “He was seen to go out with Mary by us.” / “She is heard to play the violin in the living room by me.”
I am dead set that this is wrong and it should be “He was seen going out with Mary…”
However, I need evidence to back up my claim. Does anyone know of any good grammar references online for a specific question such as this? It’s been hard finding something so specific.
Thanks![/quote]
First one sounds like an English police report. It is cetainly not “chinglish” as one poster says. In fact the Chinese hardly ever seem to use the passive voice. I don’t see anything wrong with the first one. It seems like good English to me. However the second one just sounds stupid.
He was seen to go out with Mary by us? Perhaps a regional difference? no one would say anything like that in the northeast us. “He was seen to batter Mary about the head with a blunt object” as you say in a police report or some other formal context, sure.
They are extrapolating from sentences like “Justice needs not only to be done, but to be seen to be done.” There is no sensible reason to do this. Chinese use the passive way too much. Including sentences like that in a book for English students is stupid.
The question was “is this grammatically dead wrong”? For the first case it is not grammatically wrong. I also disagree about the Chinese over using the passive. To the contrary when writing reports they dont use the passive enough.
The answer in the first case is no it isn’t. The second case is more confusing.
Stupid for EFL learners? Maybe. However that is a different question.
Another poster said that no one in the north east of the USA would say that. Well I agree. However the passive is used more for writing reports etc than for speaking. As the poster said “no one would say that”; well perhaps but they may write that i.e. for a police report.
The question was “is this grammatically dead wrong”? For the first case it is not grammatically wrong. I also disagree about the Chinese over using the passive. To the contrary when writing reports they dont use the passive enough.
The answer in the first case is no it isn’t. The second case is more confusing.
Stupid for EFL learners? Maybe. However that is a different question.
Another poster said that no one in the north east of the USA would say that. Well I agree. However the passive is used more for writing reports etc than for speaking. As the poster said “no one would say that”; well perhaps but they may write that i.e. for a police report.[/quote]
I humbly submit to your superior erudition on the subject of English usage. “He was seen to go out with Mary by us.” / “She is heard to play the violin in the living room by me,” are certainly things that you might see in a police report, especially in a police department staffed by the perenially stupid and victims of the Taiwanese educational system.
[quote=“fenlander”]
The question was “is this grammatically dead wrong”? For the first case it is not grammatically wrong. I also disagree about the Chinese over using the passive. To the contrary when writing reports they dont use the passive enough.
The answer in the first case is no it isn’t. The second case is more confusing.
Stupid for EFL learners? Maybe. However that is a different question.
Another poster said that no one in the north east of the USA would say that. Well I agree. However the passive is used more for writing reports etc than for speaking. As the poster said “no one would say that”; well perhaps but they may write that i.e. for a police report.[/quote]
true that that was his question, point taken. however grammatically not dead wrong but stilted english is basically the definition of chinglish. just because it’s not dead wrong is definitely not ample cause for inclusion in a book about grammar. the best such books i have seen have taken pains only to use real life examples from printed works or audio.
i agree that that pattern will be used in a police report, though i can’t see that sentence being used in a police report. it’s informal english about two people going out couched in a formal but stilted pattern. a police report would more likely say “john was seen to leave the premises with mary” or something. particularly i can’t see the “by me/us” though i wonder if that could be a more common pattern in some dialects. fwiw, that particular construction is pretty common in chinese.
And I too was mistooken by me. Victims of the Taiwanese educational system can’t understand the concept of a grammatical object. How could they possibly attempt to construct a sentence in the passive? What I should have said is that they construct sentences hither and tither confusing the notions of active and passive subject willy nilly as though no distinction existed.
In the first sentence, I think the problem is not the grammatical form, althought it’s unclear why you would use a passive and then add ‘by us’ as the agent; that sounds stupid. Why would you use a passive if you are the agent in this particular sentence? The question about whether to use the infinitive or not isn’t important.