Kirk Mahoney . com

An American wrote this sentence the other day in an email message to my wife.

Having lived several years in England, she told me that it looked odd to her.

She would have written “Photos are always welcomed.” — with a “d” at the end.

In other words, she sees this as a passive-voice sentence (in which the actor is not specified).

The active-voice form of the sentence could be “We always welcome photos.”

Given that speaking or writing in the passive voice requires the use of the past participle of a verb, the passive-voice form of “We always welcome photos.” requires the past participle “welcomed” — with a “d” at the end.

I believe that the American tendency to drop the “d” from the past participle “welcomed” in “Photos are always welcomed.” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis.

It is simpler to say “welcome” (without the “d”) than to say “welcomed” (with the “d”). And, even if someone says “welcomed” (with the “d”), many American listeners will not hear the “d” and will write “welcome” (without the “d”) instead.

I saw this on a website.

Problem:
The Taliban were not held in captivity for three months.

Explanation:
The full sentence was “After being held in captivity for three months, the Taliban execute a local official when their demands are not met.”

The sentence appeared at a website that tracks Islamic terror attacks.

This sentence documented an attack — by the Taliban, not ON the Taliban — that was purported to have occurred in Kunar, Afghanistan, on 22 November 2008.

The problem with the sentence is that “the Taliban” immediately follows the comma-terminated “After being held in captivity for three months” and therefore implies to the reader that the Taliban were held in captivity for three months.

I usually appreciate the use of active voice instead of passive voice, but this sentence calls for passive voice after the comma.

In other words, the correct way to leave the “After” clause in place is to say immediately after the comma WHO was executed.

Solution:
“… held in captivity for three months, a local official was executed …”

I heard this on Fox News Channel yesterday.

Problem:
The verb “breach” requires an object.

Explanation:
The word “breach” — spelled with an E and an A — is both a noun and a verb.

Its meaning as a verb is to make an opening in.

In other words, the verb “breach” is a transitive verb — a verb that takes a direct object.

Examples of transitive verbs include “open” and “hit”.

The expression that I heard on television yesterday used “breached” as if it were an intransitive verb — a verb that does not require or cannot take a direct object.

Examples of intransitive verbs include “sleep” and “rain”.

“Breach” is a transitive verb. “The water breached the levee.” is a grammatically correct example.

I believe that the grammatically incorrect expression “… when one of the levees breached” comes from speakers who hear the grammatically correct, passive-voice expression “… when one of the levees was breached” but do not notice the “was” in such a passive-voice expression.

As a result, these speakers — and writers — drop the “was” and get an active-voice but grammatically incorrect expression.

Solution:
“… when one of the levees was breached.”

I saw this in a technical presentation. (Ouch!)

Problem:
The wrong verb form is used in this sentence.

Explanation:
The Purdue University Online Writing Lab has an examples page about verb tenses and voices. A thorough discussion of English verbs appears at Wikipedia.

The sentence that I saw in the presentation was meant to be in the simple future tense and in passive voice.

We can confirm that the correct verb form is “run” — not “ran” — for this sentence by consulting Wikipedia’s set of conjugation tables for the English language’s model regular verbs and for some of its most common irregular verbs.

Another handy tool for several thousand English verbs is the verb-conjugations tool that is located here. The “Scientific Psychic” (SP) website where this tool is located is a bit quirky, but the tool seems to work well. You might like the Verbix tool instead; although it’s much pickier than the SP tool about input, its output is more thorough than SP’s output.

Here is an unorthodox but still fairly reliable method to determine which of “will be ran” or “will be run” is the correct form: search Google separately for each of “will be ran” and “will be run” with the quotation marks included in each search; the one with the dominant number of hits or matches is very likely the correct form (unless the language has fallen apart on the Web!).

For example, I just searched Google for “will be ran” and got about 31,400 matches; I searched for “will be run” and got about 568,000 matches. The 18:1 dominance of “will be run” over “will be ran” is a very good indicator that “will be run” is the correct form.

Unfortunately, this method also can depress you. Finding 31,400 matches for “will be ran” is depressing, especially when the top matches are from governmental entitities such as the State of Michigan, the University of Idaho, a high school in Iowa, a school district in North Carolina, and a commission of fire protection in Kentucky. That’s the price that you pay for an unorthodox method, I suppose.

If seeing Google return 31,400 matches for “will be ran” raises your fear for the future of our country’s literacy, then I recommend that you consider making a donation to First Book, about which I have written an article.

Solution:
“The following tests will be run.”

I heard this on a Travel Channel show about “extreme Christmas” celebrations.

Problems:
1. The verb “beat” is incorrect here.
2. The adverb “out” is unnecessary.

Explanation:
The statement is written in passive voice, albeit incorrectly. In particular, “beaten” — not “beat” — is the passive form of the verb “to beat”. (The statement in active voice would be “Liverpool beat Las Vegas.”)

I believe that the use of “beat” instead of “beaten” when the latter is appropriate represents

• ignorance about passive voice, and
• a laziness that favors shorter, fewer-syllable words over longer words.

The one-syllable “beat” is simpler than the two-syllable “beaten” to say, which is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis about American English. Throw in a common lack of understanding how sentences in the active voice are converted to sentences in the passive voice, and it’s no wonder that many English speakers choose “beat” (incorrectly) instead of “beaten” in a statement posed in the passive voice.

The other problem with the original statement is that the adverb “out” is unnecessary. Even in active voice — “Liverpool beat out Las Vegas.” — the adverb “out” is unnecessary. I have noticed a trend in American English (I can’t say whether the trend exists in other English-speaking countries.) to add one or more unnecessary adverbs after verbs, and this problematic statement contains yet another example of this trend.

Solution:
“Las Vegas was beaten by Liverpool.”

I saw this in an instant message.

Problem:
The verb “suppose” is incorrect here.

Explanation:
The statement is written in abbreviated passive voice, albeit incorrectly. The subject of the sentence (Jon) is acted on by a verb, and we do not know who is supposing that Jon will “present it”. A statement in active voice must identify the person who is supposing that Jon will “present it”.

“Jane supposes that Jon will present it.” is an example of a statement in active voice. We get “Jon is supposed by Jane to present it.” when we rearrange the statement to put it into passive voice. Abbreviating this statement, we correctly get “Jon is supposed to present it.” in abbreviated passive voice.

In other words, “supposed” — not “suppose” — is the passive form of the verb “to suppose”.

I believe that the use of “suppose” instead of “supposed” when the latter is appropriate represents

• ignorance about passive voice, and
• a laziness that favors more easily pronounced words.

The word “suppose” is easier than the word “supposed” to say. Throw in a lack of understanding how sentences in the active voice are converted to sentences in the passive voice or abbreviated passive voice, and it’s no wonder that some English speakers choose “suppose” (incorrectly) instead of “supposed” in a statement made in the passive voice or abbreviated passive voice.

Solution:
“Jon is supposed to present it.”

I heard this while listening to a radio talk-show’s discussion of the former first lady’s race for the 2008 U.S. presidency.

Problem:
The verb “beat” is incorrect here.

Explanation:
The question is written in abbreviated passive voice, albeit incorrectly. The subject of the sentence (Hillary) is acted on by the verb, and we do not know who potentially is beating her. A question in active voice must identify the person who potentially will beat Hillary.

“Can Joe beat Hillary?” is an example of a question in active voice. We get “Can Hillary be beaten by Joe?” when we rearrange the question to put it into passive voice. Abbreviating this question, we correctly get “Can Hillary be beaten?” in abbreviated passive voice.

In other words, “beaten” — not “beat” — is the passive form of the verb “to beat”.

I believe that the use of “beat” instead of “beaten” when the latter is appropriate represents

• ignorance about passive voice, and
• a laziness that favors shorter, fewer-syllable words over longer words.

The one-syllable “beat” is easier than the two-syllable “beaten” to say. Throw in a common lack of understanding how sentences in the active voice are converted to sentences in the passive voice or abbreviated passive voice, and it’s no wonder that many English speakers choose “beat” (incorrectly) instead of “beaten” in a question posed in the passive voice or abbreviated passive voice.

Solution:
“Can Hillary be beaten?”