What's new

Welcome to Japan Reference (JREF) - the community for all Things Japanese.

Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

Learn Japanese with JapanesePod101.com

Adversity Passive with transitive verbs

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
607
Reaction score
5
Are adversity passive with transitive verbs always constructed in the following pattern?

The active sentence and its corresponding passive sentence.
泥棒がミラーさんの自転車を盗みました。
A thief stole Miller-san’s bicycle.
ミラーさんは泥棒に自転車を盗まれました。(adversely affected)
Miller-san had his bicycle stolen.

The following two sentences are in the same pattern as above.
And the subjects are not considered adversely affected.
So again they are all context-dependant, aren't they?
I just need some confirmation from the horse's mouth.
山本さんは木村さんにスピーチを頼まれました。
山本さんは木村さんにマイクを渡されました。

I'm just wondering whether we have to write or say in the following pattern in order to avoid ミラーさん in this case to be interpreted as adversely affected.
So to avoid the subject to be interpreted as adversely affected we have to say or write in the pattern as follows, don't we?
ミラーさんの自転車は泥棒に盗まれました。(reported as fact)
Miller-san’s bicycle was stolen by a thief.

私はルームメートに買っておいた日本酒を全部飲まれてしまいました。(adversely affected)
I'm trying to rewrite the above sentence so that the subject 私 in this case is not considered adversely affected but to report it as a fact.
First of all, I suppose I need to take away しまう which always has a sense of regret. But what else could I do? I'm not sure.
私はルームメートに買っておいた日本酒を全部飲まれました。
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
17,009
Reaction score
3,250
Are adversity passive with transitive verbs always constructed in the following pattern?

The active sentence and its corresponding passive sentence.
泥棒がミラーさんの自転車を盗みました。
A thief stole Miller-san’s bicycle.
ミラーさんは泥棒に自転車を盗まれました。(adversely affected)
Miller-san had his bicycle stolen.
That structure is called "possessor's passive" 持主受身. The subject is the possessor of the object in the passive sentence. In this passive sentence, it doesn't always have a nuance of adversity.
e.g.
active: 先生が彼の作品をほめた。
direct passive: 彼の作品が先生にほめられた。
possessor's passive: 彼は作品を先生にほめられた。

On the other hand, when the object is not a property of the subject, that's always the passive of adversity.
e.g.
彼はライバルの作品を先生にほめられた。
(ライバルの作品 is not his(=the subject's) property, and the teacher's action "praise" is disadvantageous for him.)

This structure is called "indirect passive" 間接受身. The subject of an indirect passive sentence doesn't appear in the equivalent active sentence, for instance 先生はライバルの作品をほめた for the above. (Note that this is "indirect passive" in a narrow sense. "Possessor's passive" is sometimes included in "indirect passive" in a broader sense.)
other examples of indirect passive (in the narrow sense)
active: 子供が泣いた。(There is no 私 here.)
passive: (私は)子供に泣かれた。/子供に泣かれて困った。

active: ライバル企業が先に特許を出願した。(There is no 我が社 here.)
passive: (我が社は)ライバル企業に先に特許を出願された。

The following two sentences are in the same pattern as above.
And the subjects are not considered adversely affected.
So again they are all context-dependant, aren't they?
I just need some confirmation from the horse's mouth.
山本さんは木村さんにスピーチを頼まれました。
山本さんは木村さんにマイクを渡されました。
Actually, those are direct passive, not indirect passive or possessor's passive. Notice that those verbs can have a direct object and an indirect object at the same time.
active: 木村さんは山本さんにスピーチを頼みました。
スピーチ: direct object
山本さん: indirect object
passive 1 (direct object is the subject): 木村さんから山本さんにスピーチが頼まれました。
passive 2 (indirect object is the subject): the one you wrote (山本さんは木村さんにスピーチを頼まれました。)

active: 木村さんは山本さんにマイクを渡しました。
マイク: direct object
山本さん: indirect object
passive 1 (The direct object is the subject): 木村さんから山本さんにマイクが渡されました。
passive 2 (The indirect object is the subject): the one you wrote (山本さんは木村さんにマイクを渡されました。)

I'm just wondering whether we have to write or say in the following pattern in order to avoid ミラーさん in this case to be interpreted as adversely affected.
So to avoid the subject to be interpreted as adversely affected we have to say or write in the pattern as follows, don't we?
ミラーさんの自転車は泥棒に盗まれました。(reported as fact)
Miller-san’s bicycle was stolen by a thief.
Yes, that sentence doesn't have a nuance of adversity since that's direct passive.

私はルームメートに買っておいた日本酒を全部飲まれてしまいました。(adversely affected)
I'm trying to rewrite the above sentence so that the subject 私 in this case is not considered adversely affected but to report it as a fact.
First of all, I suppose I need to take away しまう which always has a sense of regret. But what else could I do? I'm not sure.
私はルームメートに買っておいた日本酒を全部飲まれました。
The best way is ルームメートは私が買っておいた日本酒を全部飲みました。.
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
607
Reaction score
5
The subject of an indirect passive sentence doesn't appear in the equivalent active sentence, for instance 先生はライバルの作品をほめた for the above. (Note that this is "indirect passive" in a narrow sense. "Possessor's passive" is sometimes included in "indirect passive" in a broader sense.)
I suppose this statement refers to 彼はライバルの作品を先生にほめられた where 彼 does not appear in the active sentence. I'm not quite sure even with your examples what the narrow sense and broader sense of indirect passive are. If it is too difficult to explain we could skip them.

(私は)子供に泣かれた。/子供に泣かれて困った。
The subject of a passive sentence with intransitive verbs is always adversely affected, isn't it? Because I think there's no reason to have passive form on an intransitive verb. So in a sense 困った is redundant in the latter though it could be more forceful to have it explicitly stated.

Actually, those are direct passive, not indirect passive or possessor's passive.
山本さんは木村さんにスピーチを頼まれました。
山本さんは木村さんにマイクを渡されました。
From your example, direct passive refers to passive sentence that has "noun の noun" as a subject and in the meantime I think you were referring to the above two sentences in which there's no such construction. So I'm not too sure what I've missed. I always think an indirect object is a recipient of an action and it is 山本さん in these cases. I could understand your examples of passive 1 in both cases though I've never come across such passive construction before.

The best way is ルームメートは私が買っておいた日本酒を全部飲みました。
This is the active form of the sentence. So we can't have the passive form without reading a sense of adversity in it, can we?
By the way, isn't it more courteous in Japanese culture to speak indirectly? And passive sentences are one way to do so?
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
17,009
Reaction score
3,250
I suppose this statement refers to 彼はライバルの作品を先生にほめられた where 彼 does not appear in the active sentence.
Right.

I'm not quite sure even with your examples what the narrow sense and broader sense of indirect passive are.
"彼はライバルの作品を先生にほめられた where 彼 does not appear in the active sentence" is indirect passive in the narrow sense. In the broader sense, possessor's passive is also included in indirect passive. In this case, indirect passive in the narrow sense is sometimes called 迷惑受身 "passive of adversity/adversative passive".

definition 1
two categories

indirect passive
possessor's passive

definition2
one large category

indirect passive
two sub-categories in it
passive of adversity​
possessor's passive​

(i.e. "indirect passive" in the definition 1 is the same as "passive of adversity" in the definition 2)

The subject of a passive sentence with intransitive verbs is always adversely affected, isn't it?
Yes.

So in a sense 困った is redundant in the latter though it could be more forceful to have it explicitly stated.
It's not "redundant". That's an example where the passive can be used in a clause. Other main clauses like (子供に泣かれて)迷惑した, 驚いた, 後悔した are also possible.

From your example, direct passive refers to passive sentence that has "noun の noun" as a subject and in the meantime I think you were referring to the above two sentences in which there's no such construction.
No. You misunderstood my explanation. Passive 1 and passive 2 are both direct passive. "Noun の noun" has nothing to do with direct passive.

I always think an indirect object is a recipient of an action and it is 山本さん in these cases.
That's right, therefore your examples are direct passive.

I could understand your examples of passive 1 in both cases though I've never come across such passive construction before.
It's commonly used often in objective descriptions like newspaper articles.
e.g.
首相から大統領に親書が贈られた。
大会主催者から優勝者に賞状が手渡された。

So we can't have the passive form without reading a sense of adversity in it, can we?
In your example, yes.

By the way, isn't it more courteous in Japanese culture to speak indirectly? And passive sentences are one way to do so?
Yes, indeed passive sentences can be used for that purpose, but there are many other expressions for the same purpose, for instance ルームメートは買っておいた酒を全部飲んでくれました。, so there is no reason to stick to passive sentence when it could be misinterpreted as passive of adversity.
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
607
Reaction score
5
direct passive
Could you please tell me the definition of direct passive? I had supposed from your examples direct passive refers to the direct object being used as the subject in the passive sentence.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
17,009
Reaction score
3,250
Could you please tell me the definition of direct passive?
A passive sentence where the subject is the object or indirect object(when the verb can have it, needless to say) in the active sentence.

Are you, by any chance, confused direct object with direct passive or indirect object with indirect passive just like you did for "volitional verb vs. volitional form" previously? If so, those are different concepts and have nothing to do with each other. There isn't any relation between indirect object and indirect quotation also in English grammar, is there?
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
607
Reaction score
5
Are you, by any chance, confused direct object with direct passive or indirect object with indirect passive just like you did for "volitional verb vs. volitional form" previously?
I can’t answer you this question until you do me a favour by clarifying what direct passive means. We learnt our language mostly by reading and picking up from daily conversations. We didn’t pay particular attention on terminology from the grammar’s point of view. We would only find more not all terminology be introduced to students learning as second language.

I believe direct object is the thing the action applied on and indirect object is the recipient of the direct object.

direct passive: 彼の作品が先生にほめられた。
I have been guessing direct passive has the direct object as the subject in the passive sentence. Obviously I’m wrong. I won’t venture further.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
17,009
Reaction score
3,250
I can’t answer you this question until you do me a favour by clarifying what direct passive means.
I already answered it.

A passive sentence where the subject is the object or indirect object(when the verb can have it, needless to say) in the active sentence.

I believe direct object is the thing the action applied on and indirect object is the recipient of the direct object.
I already agreed with it (for indirect object). Your understanding of direct object is also correct, of course.

I always think an indirect object is a recipient of an action and it is 山本さん in these cases.
That's right

I have been guessing direct passive has the direct object as the subject in the passive sentence.
That's not wrong. It's just that indirect object also can be the subject of direct passive other than direct object.
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
607
Reaction score
5
Thanks for your patience.
A passive sentence where the subject is the object or indirect object(when the verb can have it, needless to say) in the active sentence.
What you wrote there wasn't really clear to me. My best guess was you were defining what a passive sentence would be since you started with "A passive sentence". So it would be just the same as in the English language and probably any language. Please I can't tell if you were defining direct passive or indirect passive sentences.

Are you, by any chance, confused direct object with direct passive or indirect object with indirect passive
When I said I couldn't answer your question because I wasn't sure what direct passive and indirect passive were at the time. Your last definition above had thrown me. Since you wondered if I was confused, then I gathered I must've been wrong anyway. Having read the thread a few more times I think I understand better now pending your verification. I never learnt the terminology of direct passive and indirect passive before. You have enlightened me.

definition 1
two categories

indirect passive
possessor's passive

definition2
one large category

indirect passive
two sub-categories in it
passive of adversity
possessor's passive
Are the above all the categories of passive sentences? Where is the direct passive?
I suppose definition 1 is in the narrow sense while definition 2 is in the broader sense.

The subject of an indirect passive sentence doesn't appear in the equivalent active sentence,
So it doesn't matter if the subject of an indirect passive sentence is explicit but it must not be possible in the active sentence in any way and hence cannot be deliberately not mentioned. Is my understanding correct?

Below are the indirect passive example sentences quoted so far, please check.
彼はライバルの作品を先生にほめられた。
(私は)子供に泣かれた。/子供に泣かれて困った。
(我が社は)ライバル企業に先に特許を出願された。

Can we say those not indirect passive are all direct passive?
In other words, are possessor's passive also classified under direct passive?
Below are the direct passive example sentences quoted so far, please check.
木村さんから山本さんにスピーチが頼まれました。
山本さんは木村さんにスピーチを頼まれました。
木村さんから山本さんにマイクが渡されました。
山本さんは木村さんにマイクを渡されました。
彼の作品が先生にほめられた。

Are the following also direct passive?
ミラーさんは泥棒に自転車を盗まれました。
私はルームメートに買っておいた日本酒を全部飲まれてしまいました。

Below is the only possessor's passive example sentence quoted so far, please check.
彼は作品を先生にほめられた。

Lastly but not the least I would like to thank you for your patience and tolerance. You have gone out of your way and bent over backwards to help. I do really appreciate it. I hope I wouldn't keep you up too late. Please take care of yourself.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
17,009
Reaction score
3,250
What you wrote there wasn't really clear to me. My best guess was you were defining what a passive sentence would be since you started with "A passive sentence". So it would be just the same as in the English language and probably any language. Please I can't tell if you were defining direct passive or indirect passive sentences.
Your question was "Could you please tell me the definition of direct passive?" and I wrote my answer to it. Thus, "A passive sentence ~" means "(the definition of direct passive is) a passive sentence ~". Makes sense?
(From the context I explained above, it didn't occur to me that there was any possibility where my answer could be interpreted as the definition of passive sentence in general including indirect passive...)

Are the above all the categories of passive sentences? Where is the direct passive?
That's my reply to your question/problem "I'm not quite sure even with your examples what the narrow sense and broader sense of indirect passive are. ". Isn't it natural to interpret that I explained about "what the narrow sense and broader sense of indirect passive are" in my reply? That's really an explanation about the two different definitions of indirect passive, both in the narrow and broader sense. Direct passive has nothing to do with these definitions.

Are you reading my replies with the quotations from your post put right above them? From your these replies, I have an impression that you only read my replies, and didn't read the quotations from your posts.

Below are the indirect passive example sentences quoted so far, please check.
彼はライバルの作品を先生にほめられた。
(私は)子供に泣かれた。/子供に泣かれて困った。
(我が社は)ライバル企業に先に特許を出願された。
Yes, all those sentences are indirect passive in the narrow sense. The equivalent active sentences are respectively;

先生がライバルの作品をほめた。
子供が泣いた。
ライバル企業が先に特許を出願した。

As you can see above, the subject of each indirect passive sentence (彼, 私 and 我が社, respectively) doesn't (or can't) appear in the equivalent active sentence.

Can we say those not indirect passive are all direct passive?
As for indirect passive in the broader sense, yes, but as for indirect passive in the narrow sense, no.

In other words, are possessor's passive also classified under direct passive?
No. Possessor's passive doesn't belong to direct passive. As I already explained previously, the subject of direct passive is only either the direct object or indirect object of the active sentence.

Below are the direct passive example sentences quoted so far, please check.
木村さんから山本さんにスピーチが頼まれました。
山本さんは木村さんにスピーチを頼まれました。
木村さんから山本さんにマイクが渡されました。
山本さんは木村さんにマイクを渡されました。
彼の作品が先生にほめられた。
Yes, all those sentences are direct passive.

Are the following also direct passive?
ミラーさんは泥棒に自転車を盗まれました。
私はルームメートに買っておいた日本酒を全部飲まれてしまいました。
No. The former one is possessor's passive, and the latter is indirect passive in the narrow sense. It's also possible to interpret the latter one as possessor's passive from the interpretation ルームメートに買っておいた私の日本酒, though.
Anyway, the point is those are not direct passive because を is used in the passive sentence, and both 盗む and 飲む don't have the indirect object.

Below is the only possessor's passive example sentence quoted so far, please check.
彼は作品を先生にほめられた。
That's exactly possessor's passive, but not only one example.

Lastly but not the least I would like to thank you for your patience and tolerance. You have gone out of your way and bent over backwards to help. I do really appreciate it. I hope I wouldn't keep you up too late. Please take care of yourself.
Thank you for your kind words. I've been writing my posts only when I have time, so it's just I had time in the midnight on Tuesday.:)
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
607
Reaction score
5
That's exactly possessor's passive, but not only one example.
In terms of the pattern, it seems to me that the following two sentences are also possessor's passive though they're already classified under direct passive. However strictly speaking the speech and the microphone don't belong to 山本さん nor 木村さん.
山本さんは木村さんにスピーチを頼まれました。
山本さんは木村さんにマイクを渡されました。
The other one must be 私はルームメートに買っておいた日本酒を全部飲まれてしまいました as you pointed out. Do we need to rewrite it as ルームメートに買っておいた私の日本酒を全部飲まれてしまいました and include 私の before we can reclassify it or we can simply presume and reclassify the original?
Can we also consider (我が社は)ライバル企業に先に特許を出願された to be possessor's passive if we take it that was our company's patent?

I've been writing my posts only when I have time, so it's just I had time in the midnight on Tuesday.
Thanks for not giving up on me. I do appreciate it. I can understand sometimes my response could be irritating. I might have asked of things very obvious to you while I don't want to presume. Please take your time. No hurry! I've no deadline to meet.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
17,009
Reaction score
3,250
In terms of the pattern, it seems to me that the following two sentences are also possessor's passive though they're already classified under direct passive. However strictly speaking the speech and the microphone don't belong to 山本さん nor 木村さん.
山本さんは木村さんにスピーチを頼まれました。
山本さんは木村さんにマイクを渡されました。
"山本さん is not the possessor of speech or microphone" is exactly the reason why those two sentences can't be possessor's passive. It doesn't follow the definition of possessor's passive.

The other one must be 私はルームメートに買っておいた日本酒を全部飲まれてしまいました as you pointed out. Do we need to rewrite it as ルームメートに買っておいた私の日本酒を全部飲まれてしまいました and include 私の before we can reclassify it or we can simply presume and reclassify the original?
It's the latter. The original can be possessor's passive without changing anything. 買っておいた私の日本酒 or 私が買っておいた日本酒 can exclude other possible interpretations than possessor's passive.

Can we also consider (我が社は)ライバル企業に先に特許を出願された to be possessor's passive if we take it that was our company's patent?
No. ライバル企業に先に特許を出願された means that the competitor applied for a patent before our company, thus, the patent was not registered at that time, so the interpretation "our patent" can't be possible. ライバル企業に特許を侵害された "they infringed the patent " is possessor's passive.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
17,009
Reaction score
3,250
ライバル企業 is a noun.
As for ライバルの企業, ライバル can refer to a parson/people "the speaker's rival(s)", so ライバルの企業 can mean a company the rival owns or works for depending on the context.
 
Top Bottom