A few Questions: Passive Voice.

[da mitey warrior]

I have a few questions, maybe someone could explain this to me.

1) What exactly is this passive voice thing I keep hearing about?

2) Why is passive voice bad?

3) What can I do to avoice such horrors in my writing?

Much thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this subject for me.

[Vanth]

Passive voice uses boring verbs to make nouns have things done to them.  The verb 'to be' often indicates passive voice.  

Active voice uses active verbs to make nouns do things.

Passive voice:
There is a scar on his cheek.

The scar just is.  Kinda boring.

Active voice:
A scar bisects his cheek.
A scar slashes across his cheek.

See how active that scar becomes?

[Sanvean]

There's a decent handout on it here as well.  With diagrams, even.

[amoeba]

In an emote consider the following:

1.  talk (in an angry tone as he looks at ~jerk) That just pissed me off you know.

2. talk (slamming his fist heavily on the bar as he leans in at ~jerk, spittle flying from his lips while he yells) Now you've really pissed me off asshole!

(edited to add content:)

Looking at the prior comments, and I'll give a caveat, I'm not the best grammarian, but I wanted to give a full emote example.

I'll give you that emoting is not the same as the way a book flows, there are some limitations.

for example

1. emote at the sound of %loud boooming voice, @ quickly jumps back, knocking over a stool with a crash.

2. emote recoils quickly and knockis over a stool with a loud crash as ~loud slams his fist into the bartop.

It is possible I have some of this wrong and certianly others can come up with more vivid examples.

I think the other thing is to use active verbs and phrases. One that evoke some imagry.

For example:

Grass can "blow back and forth in the wind".  or it can "sway in rhythm with the morning breeze".  You can hit someone hard, or you can hit them with the violence of a mul in heat.

Okay, I'm tired, and going to bed, hopefully this makes sense in the morning.

[Bestatte]

In summary, any time you use any form or variation of the verb "to be" you use passive voice.

Passive: The green-eyed man is here.
Active: The green-eyed man stands here.

Passive: An agafari table is here.
Active: An agafari table crouches low in the corner.

Passive: Several trunks are here on the floor.
Active: Several trunks collect against the wall.

Passive in an mdesc: Scars from what might have been an old injury are on the girl's arms.
Active: Old injury scars mar the girl's arms.

Examples of "forms" of the verb to be:

is, are, was, be, been, would/should/could/might have been, were seems/appears to be (this list is not inclusive).

Alternatives to passive (when you really just want to let people know something is there and not doing anything specific): crouches, reclines, lays, walks, stands, leans, stretches, extends, lingers, hovers, looms, languishes, teeters (this list is not inclusive).

If you are wondering if something is passive or not, the clue is any use of the verb to be.

[flurry]

The verb "to be" by itself is not passive voice.  That doesn't mean it's the best choice of verb, of course, but that's another issue.

If you have "to be" followed by a past participle, that is passive voice.

The hunter was tracking the mekillot.   (Active voice)
The mekillot was being tracked by the hunter.  (Passive voice)

The nilazi slammed the heavy agafari door.  (Active voice)
The heavy agafari door was slammed by the nilazi.   (Passive voice)

The merchant drove the wagon into a ditch. (Active voice)
The wagon was driven into the ditch by the merchant. (Passive voice)

The templar questioned the 'rinther for hours. (Active voice)
The 'rinther was questioned by the templar for hours. (Passive voice)

[JollyGreenGiant]

Ooh, can I play too?

Passive:
The scar is boring.

Active:
The scar is boring a hole through my head.

[flurry]

I think people are confusing active/passive voice with strong/weak verbs.

[Vesperas]

Flurry gave me a flash-back to my nineth-grade grammar book.  Heh.

I think he hit the nail on the head.

[amoeba]

I think people are confusing active/passive voice with strong/weak verbs.

It is not so much confusion, as it is in trying to get in context of the 'spirit' of the question.  The rules notwithstanding, how do you create more interesting emotes and such?  When I was trying to produce a passive vs. active emote, I had a hard time showing a -good- example of one.  Albiet I have to admit I was in braindead mode.  If you want a good exercise, try doing a emote that shows the difference well.  Maybe it is just me, but somehow the structure of the emotes doesn't lend itself well to explaining it.

[Xygax]

Actually, I think the spirit of the question was pretty clear from its phrasing.  The questioner wants to know the meaning of the grammatical term "passive voice" and how it affects their writing.  They don't want to know how to make their emoting style more aggressive or how to make their emotes more flowery or expressive.

For the correct and precise answer to the original question, please reference the Purdue handouts Sanvean linked or refer to this link which may (for some readers) provide a more rigorous definition.

Because passive voice is characterized by the use of a part-participle verb-form, you don't see it overmuch in our emoting, but here is an example:

:has been struck by ~attacker.  (passive)
:~attacker strikes @.  (active)

Passive voice isn't necessarily better or worse than active.  What you may find, however, is that active voice may make your emotes (or other writing) flow more smoothly or clearly.

-- X

[Bakha]

High school kids also seem to think that passive voice equals the use of "to be." My guess is that many English teachers are now teaching that at the high school level as when this comes up in my Journalism classes even the bright students equate passive voice with use of "to be."

Grammar seems to have gone out of style at some point between when I was in high school and when I began teaching it. When I mention to my colleagues that they might want to look into diagramming sentences to help kids understand basic grammatical principles and sentence structure, they all look at me like I've just proposed that we go back to teaching that the earth is flat.

[amoeba]

Actually, I think the spirit of the question was pretty clear from its phrasing.  The questioner wants to know the meaning of the grammatical term "passive voice" and how it affects their writing.  They don't want to know how to make their emoting style more aggressive or how to make their emotes more flowery or expressive.

An overreading on my part. My apologies.

[Cale_Knight]

It's important to remember that the passive voice isn't bad. That's a misconception. It's just the weaker choice in many cases. What the passive voice does is place emphasis on a different subject. Consider these two Zalanthasized sentences:

An independant hunter killed the fifty-ton mekillot on Nekrete.

The fifty-ton mekillot was killed by an independant hunter on Nekrete.

In this case, the passive is probably going to be preferred because nobody cares about the indy hunter - what's amazing is the huge mekillot.

The passive voice is just another tool when it comes to writing. It's not a horror to be avoided at all costs.

[Bakha]

It's important to remember that the passive voice isn't bad. That's a misconception. It's just the weaker choice in many cases. What the passive voice does is place emphasis on a different subject. Consider these two Zalanthasized sentences:

An independant hunter killed the fifty-ton mekillot on Nekrete.

The fifty-ton mekillot was killed by an independant hunter on Nekrete.

In this case, the passive is probably going to be preferred because nobody cares about the indy hunter - what's amazing is the huge mekillot.

The passive voice is just another tool when it comes to writing. It's not a horror to be avoided at all costs.

Excellent point and example.

[joyofdiscord]

Passive voice is a grammatical construction used only with transitive verbs.  It is signaled by "to be" followed by the past participle form of the verb.  All such verb phrases are passive voice, and all passive voice verb phrases take this form.

Active: The cat ate the mouse.
Passive: The mouse was eaten (by the cat). ()=agent, optional

(In this case, since the subject-matter is SO dull, passive voice actually livens up the sentence by providing a syntactic change of pace.)

Classically, the passive voice is considered something to avoid because a weak writer may overuse it, and all else being equal, it's wordier.

However, the appropriate situation for use of the past tense is when the recipient of the action is more important than the agent of the action.

For example.

Active voice: J&B Construction, Inc. constructed that building in 1981.
Passive Voice: That building was constructed in 1981.

If the exact construction firm is not important to the flow of meaning, passive voice with no agent is probably superior.

[Bestatte]

I don't believe that's true, joyofdiscord. The part where you say passive voice ONLY refers to transitive verbs. Example:

The chair is blue, and is on the floor.

Clearly passive, with no transitive verbs. This is that, this is that.

An "active" rewrite of the same sentence:

The blue chair sits on the floor.

Not significantly shorter, but clearly shows that the "chair" is "doing something other than simply existing."

This is...

is passive.

This does...

is active.

[Cale_Knight]

"The chair is blue" is active construction. Passive would be "Blue is the color of the chair."

[Pantoufle]

Passive voice is used most frequently in newspaper or magazine articles.  As in: The cyclist was hit by a car.  Having said that, passive should not be avoided.  It's a matter of what you wish to place the focus on.

Grammatically speaking, passive is when the subject and the object are the same.

Somebody built this house in 1935.  Subject = Somebody, Object = This house.

This house was built in 1935.  Subject = This house, Object = This house.

In the first example, an active sentance, the main focus is "somebody".  But in that instance, we don't really know who somebody is and what's more important is a) the house and b) when it was built.  Passive voice makes for a better alternative in this case.

Furthermore, passive voice can easily be as descriptive as active voice by placing "by ..." appended to the sentance.

Here's a boring, undescriptive active sentance for you:

Somebody hit the cyclist.

Now here's a descriptive PASSIVE sentance:

The cyclist was hit by a racing car whizzing at dangerous, break-neck speeds.

Passive and active voice shouldn't compete against one another, and most "Creative Writing Teachers" who speak negatively of it are the same "Teachers" who practice misconcieved grammar rules which state the past participle of get is 'gotten' (which is not true.)  The question is where you want to place the emphasis in a sentance.  If I don't want my audience to know who hit the cyclist because it isn't important, then I'm not about to use an active sentance because it would lead to misinterpreations.

[joyofdiscord]

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_actpass.html
Passive voice.  I usually teach the passive voice at least once a month.  Has its uses, but sometimes just sounds absurd if it's not actually called for.

Passive voice is when the grammatical subject of the sentence is the logical object of the main verb.  Since only transitive verbs take objects, only transitive verbs are used in passive voice.  It is called passive voice because the subject is not performing an action, but receiving.  It is acting "passively" in the sentence.

An attributive sentence like "The chair is there" uses a predicate nominative.  There is no action to speak of, so there is no passive actor.  No passive actor, no passive voice.  "The chair is blue" is the same.  Even "Blue is the color of the chair."  Passive voice would have to be "The chair is seen as blue."

[Bestatte]

I stand corrected, and clarify:

Not all uses of the verb "to be" indicate passive voice. However, passive voice -does- includes some use of the verb "to be." If you check the examples on the websites provided in this thread, you'll notice this trend. Every single example given of passive voice includes some use of the verb "to be." So if your description is loaded with (is, was, were, would have been, should be, etc.) - and IF you are interested in cutting down on passives, then focus on those sentences and see if there are other ways of writing them.

As mentioned in several posts, passives are not incorrectly written. Sometimes they do more justice to a sentence than their active counterpart. But in descriptive writing (such as main descriptions on an Armageddon character, room, or mob), overuse of passives can be cumbersome and problematic, and sometimes even confusing. Thus, the suggestion that passive voice be kept in check. Doesn't mean "don't ever use it!" but it does mean that there is often a more appropriate active alternative, with exceptions, and to be aware of that when you're writing.

[Xygax]

Use of the verb "to be" isn't a specific enough qualification.  From the page I linked before:

The passive forms of a verb are created by combining a form of the "to be verb" with the past participle of the main verb.

Also, as noted on the page I linked, it is possible to craft passive constructions which omit an implied past-participle (ie., deceptively leaving out the "to be"):

[Having been] designed for off-road performance, the Pathseeker does not always behave well on paved highways.

(apparently you can't do strikethrough in BBCode, but the [Having been] above can be removed and leave a grammatically valid sentence.

Good formal definitions are provided that link, and they are both specific and complete.

-- X