zompist bboard

Make the following sentence passive: "I tried to add the element."

Perhaps: "The element was tried to be added (by me)."?
Or maybe: "The element was tried to add (by me)."?

Am I right in thinking that it's just not possible?

In general I don't think you can raise the object out of the subclause to be passivized. You can't passivize the underlined element in these sentences:

I wanted to eat the steak.
I decided to marry the girl.
I thought to invite her mother.
I went to unlock the monster.
I learned to cook the accounts.

zompist wrote:In general I don't think you can raise the object out of the subclause to be passivized. You can't passivize the underlined element in these sentences:

I wanted to eat the steak.
I decided to marry the girl.
I thought to invite her mother.
I went to unlock the monster.
I learned to cook the accounts.

For me, I think I can get away with ?the steak was wanted to be eaten by me, or ?the steak was wanted by me to be eaten, although the former doesn't make the wanter explicit, and the latter may be sleight of hand due to the ambiguity of 'want'. I agree with your other examples, though.

You can't normally take the object out of the embedded clause, and you can't promote the clause itself because it's not sufficiently noun-like. So the closest you can get, I think, is to promote a nominalised version of the clause: "Addition of the element was attempted by me". ['try' doesn't seem to like being passivised anyway IMD - I can do it, but in most circumstances it sounds a bit weird].

"I tried to add the element."

the addition of the element was tried by me [?]
the element was attempted to be added by me [X?wtf?noidon'thinkso]

But you could nominalize the argument, thus

adding the element was attempted by me

which sounds quite natural, though only useful in a few contexts.

Terra wrote:Make the following sentence passive: "I tried to add the element."

Perhaps: "The element was tried to be added (by me)."?
Or maybe: "The element was tried to add (by me)."?

Am I right in thinking that it's just not possible?

"Adding the element was tried by me [and wearing it like a hat was tried by Elvis]" is the closest I can get. That's assuming that it's synonymous to "I tried adding the element", which I'm not sure it is.

"I tried to add the element [but something prevented me from doing so]"
"I tried adding the element [and then something happened]"

So never mind.

Transitive infinitives don't passivize easily. They do have something they can do that resembles passivization, but it results in a phrase of the more general pattern "for NOUN to VERB":

to add the element for the element to be added

Trouble is, the resulting phrase is no longer a valid complement for the main verb in most of the examples:
*I tried for the element to be added
*I decided for the girl to be married
*I thought for her mother to be invited
*I went for the monster to be unlocked
*I learned for the accounts to be cooked

Being ungrammatical, there are no further transformations we can apply to these.

An exception: I wanted for the steak to be eaten works fine. But there is still no way to passivize the main clause. Which is interesting, because such pseudo-passivized infinitives are capable of being subjects in other circumstances:

For him to be injured is not good.
*For the steak to be eaten was wanted.

"I tried for the element to be added" is about the closest I can get. Wait a minute that's not passive.

Fuck, I'm out of ideas then.

Terra wrote:Make the following sentence passive: "I tried to add the element."

Perhaps: "The element was tried to be added (by me)."?
Or maybe: "The element was tried to add (by me)."?

Am I right in thinking that it's just not possible?

In a lab report, which is what this appears like it would come from, I would write, "An attempt to add the element was made." But that's just me.

an attempt for the element to be added was made by me ?

Torco wrote:an attempt for the element to be added was made by me ?

I find that grammatical, and I sue constructions like it all the time.

it was attempted that the element be added... no

I think the closest to passivization that can be done here is a dummy subject, which is semantically not too far off

Atom wrote:

Torco wrote:an attempt for the element to be added was made by me ?

I find that grammatical, and I sue constructions like it all the time.

that sounds a bit kafkian, I mean, who are the juries? other phrases?

Ironically, the broken paradigm of "can" allows it to be passivized more easily. It also reveals the source of pattern that I was trying to apply to "try".
"I can add the element."
"I was able to add the element." -> "The element was able to be added by me."

The nominalizations are interesting alternative solutions.

In a lab report, which is what this appears like it would come from, I would write, "An attempt to add the element was made." But that's just me.

Actually, my context was that I was writing an error message for some code. I ended up rewriting the sentence to be active, and then completely replacing it with an sentence that also describes why the action failed, instead of just what failed.

I think that this inability to passivize some sentences is a(nother) good reason to avoid it in technical writing, because at some point you'll want to passivize something that you can't, so you'll have to use the active, which will then stick out, because everything else is passive.

I'm not sure why lab reports insist on the passive though. Do they think that by leaving out the agent, they're fooling people into thinking that nobody performed the action? Why couldn't they just leave the sentence active, but have the subject implied, like in "Tried to add the element."?

in scienchespech you can generally opt not only for the first person passive, but for constructions such as 'se realizó un experimento' or 'an experiment was performed'. This makes your predicament easier. An attempt was made to add the element or adding the element was attempted, but... or stuff, it all sounds perfectly apt for a paper or scientific thingamajig to me, without the me.

its symbollic: what matters is not who did it, but what was done: it has to do with reproductibility; 'i added the element and then it happened' sounds like you had a key role in it, like maybe if someone else adds the element it will not happen; but 'the element was added and then it happened', well, it sounds more like no matter who adds it, it happens when someone or something happens to add the element.

Terra wrote:Ironically, the broken paradigm of "can" allows it to be passivized more easily. It also reveals the source of pattern that I was trying to apply to "try".
"I can add the element."
"I was able to add the element." -> "The element was able to be added by me."

This still isn't a perfect passivisation - in your passive sentence, the ability is a property of the object raised to subject, not any more of the agens.

What about "I wanted the steak to be eaten by me?"

A perfect passive is impossible in this case. You can't promote an object to subject position with a verb form that specifically prohibits subjects.

Torco wrote:

Atom wrote:

Torco wrote:an attempt for the element to be added was made by me ?

I find that grammatical, and I sue constructions like it all the time.

that sounds a bit kafkian, I mean, who are the juries? other phrases?

A jury of its phrase-peers.

Atom wrote:

Torco wrote:an attempt for the element to be added was made by me ?

I find that grammatical, and I sue constructions like it all the time.

A desire for how you can think so to be understood was had by me.