Metsis:Aargh, I had to Google for a "disde" example and I found this in Wiktionary:

If you do not get out of my sight this instant, I...
Se vi ne tuj foriras disde mian vidon, mi...

"dis" means apart, separate. I'm not sure, what exactly "de" means here. However I would have used "for de mia vido", away of my sight, but I might be wrong.

Well, if you know, who or what is causing something, then you use normal active voice. It's the same thing in English. Which one is easier, "I do it" vs. "it is done by me"? I just recently wrote about, what the passive voice can mean in another thread here in Lernu. (As a footnote based on my native language for me the real passive voice is the impersonal one, The one with an agent is for me just an overly complicated way of expressing things. For an international auxilliary language simpler is better.)

OVS word order in the active voice is an option for the pseudo-passive voice. What is your native language?

MiMalamasLaAnglan:
OVS word order in the active voice is an option for the pseudo-passive voice. What is your native language?

OVS word order is possible, Muson manĝas la kato, albeit it sounds a little strange in daily speech for me anyway.

As I wrote in that another thread, there are (at least) two ways to understand passive voice: the impersonal and the state-changing ones (my own terms in lack of better or correct ones). My native language is Finnish, which has that impersonal one, i.e. a sentence with any kind of explicitly expressed actor, initiator or agent, cannot be in the passive voice. It is automatically in the active. "Something was done by someone" is expressed in Finnish by an active voice sentence "Someone did something", because the actor, "someone", is explicitly expressed. However a sentence "Something was done" is expressed by a passive voice sentence, because no actor is given – althought its is usually assumed, that the actors are humans, no animals nor machines.

Furthermore the passive voice in Finnish has simple, non-compound, forms in presence and simple past tense. I think theoretically these could be written in E-o for the esti verb as estintas ("is been") resp. estintis ("was been"), but please, stay away from any such form. Stick with oni estas and oni estis.

Ĉi vi estas anglaparolanto?

Metsis:

MiMalamasLaAnglan:
OVS word order in the active voice is an option for the pseudo-passive voice. What is your native language?

OVS word order is possible, Muson manĝas la kato, albeit it sounds a little strange in daily speech for me anyway.

As I wrote in that another thread, there are (at least) two ways to understand passive voice: the impersonal and the state-changing ones (my own terms in lack of better or correct ones). My native language is Finnish, which has that impersonal one, i.e. a sentence with any kind of explicitly expressed actor, initiator or agent, cannot be in the passive voice. It is automatically in the active. "Something was done by someone" is expressed in Finnish by an active voice sentence "Someone did something", because the actor, "someone", is explicitly expressed. However a sentence "Something was done" is expressed by a passive voice sentence, because no actor is given – althought its is usually assumed, that the actors are humans, no animals nor machines.

Furthermore the passive voice in Finnish has simple, non-compound, forms in presence and simple past tense. I think theoretically these could be written in E-o for the esti verb as estintas ("is been") resp. estintis ("was been"), but please, stay away from any such form. Stick with oni estas and oni estis.

Ĉi vi estas anglaparolanto?

Is OVS word order used very often for a pseudo-passive voice in Esperanto? Can you show me examples of the Finnish passive voice?

Ankaŭ, mi denaske parolas la anglan.

MiMalamasLaAnglan:
Is OVS word order used very often for a pseudo-passive voice in Esperanto?

I had to google, what pseudo-passive means. Wikipedia says, that pseudopassive may refer to

• impersonal passive voice, or
  
• prepositional passive

So I'm not sure, to which one you are referring. That disambiguation page in Wikipedia leads to pages with examples.

Impersonal passive voice

I picked examples in German, because I can a little it:
    Die Kinder spielen → Es wird gespielt.
    (The children are playing → It is played)
    La infanoj ludas → Estas ludata/Oni ludas.

However usually one would add an adverb of time or place in German:
    Heute wird gespielt.
    (Today is played.)
    Hodiaŭ estas ludata/Hodiaŭ oni ludas.

In either case I would prefer the expressions with the indefinite pronoun (la nedifina pronomo) oni.

A OVS word order sentence could be something like
    Hodiaŭ futbalon ludas oni
which I think, is grammatically correct, but surely sounds strange, Yoda-like. (As a side not I have written about the word order possibilities previously here in Lernu.)

Prepositional passive

This seems to be an English speciality

    They talked about the problem. → The problem was talked about.

with a stranded (not followed by an object) preposition at the end.

One can translate that into E-o either
    La problemo estis priparolata.
    Oni parolis pri la problemo.

Once again I prefer the later, the one with oni, because it's simpler and you more likely get the preposition right. The former can lead to the pri-ismo (see elsewhere in Lernu).

When it comes to your question about how often certain expressions are used in E-o, I have no sources to dig in. However my observations for instance from Youtube videos and some magazines are, that in speech oni with SVO order is a clear winner. Written texts vary in complexity, but there are e.g. in Monato texts, that are really [read: unnecessary] hard (at least to me) to understand. They usually are long sentences with multiple explaining remarks, passive voice and so.

A motto of some kind for me is:
Things to explain may be hard, but the language to explain should not be.

MiMalamasLaAnglan:Can you show me examples of the Finnish passive voice?

Certe, you might regret, what you asked for Passive voice in Finnish can be used in a couple of ways, but common for they all is, that some unspecified human or group of humans do something.

1) To put the action or the result in focus

From a recent news regarding Brexit:

    Hallituksen ja työväenpuolueen neuvotteluissa yritetään löytää eroratkaisu, jonka parlamentin enemmistö voisi hyväksyä.
    En interkonsiliĝo inter la registaro kaj la labora partio oni klopodas trovi solvon pri la eliro tiel, ke la plejmulto de la parlamento povus akcepti ĝin.

It is not explicitly stated, who are trying. But since the sentence names the parties (la registaro resp. la labora partio) of the negotiations, one can deduce, that some, unnamed representatives of those parties are negotiating.

The focus is in the act of trying to find a solution.

2) In regulations and guides

    Rasva sulatetaan ja jauhot sekoitetaan joukkoon.
    Fandigu la grason [=buteron] kaj miksu farunojn kun ĝi.

The idea with the passive voice here is, that in principe anyone can do that. Note, that E-o addresses the reader directly.

3) Single event with unspecified actor (unknown or not deemed necessary to reveal)

    Pankki ryöstettiin Lahdessa
    Oni rabis bankon en Lahtio.

Who rob the bank is still unclear.

Note, that one cannot use the passive voice, when machines are doing something.

     Arvo tulostuu näyttöruutuun.
    La valoro vidiĝas en la ekranon.

Here a passive voice (tulostetaan) would mean, that some unspecified human, perhaps the user (see case 2 above) is somehow expected to print or show the value on the screen. Note, that E-o follows the same pattern (vidiĝi : become visible), while in English this would likely be said "The value is displayed on the screen".

Metsis:
I had to google, what pseudo-passive means. Wikipedia says, that pseudopassive may refer to

• impersonal passive voice, or
  
• prepositional passive

So I'm not sure, to which one you are referring. That disambiguation page in Wikipedia leads to pages with examples.

I was not aware that pseudopassive is an actual term. I used it to refer to a sentence that is in the active voice, but somehow resembles the passive voice (like using OVS word order, for example).

Metsis:
Once again I prefer the later, the one with oni, because it's simpler and you more likely get the preposition right. The former can lead to the pri-ismo (see elsewhere in Lernu).

I do not understand priismo. It makes zero sense.

MiMalamasLaAnglan:
I do not understand priismo. It makes zero sense.

No need. It doesn't make.

Metsis:

MiMalamasLaAnglan:
I do not understand priismo. It makes zero sense.

No need. It doesn't make.

I would like to see a complete list of Amigueo's proposals for Esperanto, which also make zero sense.

Mi tre favoras al la ĉeesto de na en la internacia lingvo. Ne nur tial kial tiu prepozicio povus helpi esprimante la akuzativon ali-iel. Sed tial kial ĝi estas unue kaj precipe tre praktika prepozicio por signifi precizan punkton sur lineo de tempo aŭ de iu ajn alia unudimensia vojo, multe pli bone ol faras "ĉe" aŭ "je". Ĉe estas precipe por esti en spaca loko apartenanta a persono aŭ afero. Je estas tre vasta je la senco, sed uziĝas precipe kaj priorece por precizigi la kuntekston de iu ajn ago aŭ kvalito. Ekz : esti granda je la persona kulturo, sukcesi je la parenca moralo, esti proksima je kelkaj kilometroj, esti riĉa je mono sed malriĉa je la ama vido, vojaĝi je la tempo. Na almontras punkton laŭ lineo, plej ofte tempa aŭ agada. Alveni na la kvara horo punkte. Ĉeesti kun la profesoro na la nigra tabelo (fine de almarŝo). Sidi ĵus na la piano por ludi. Na servas precipe por diri la loko ĵus antaŭ la objekto de sia laboro aŭ alia agado. Do per vojo de konsekvenco, ne de esenco, ĝi enkondukas ankaŭ rektajn objektojn de agadaj verboj. Na estas prepozicio de rusa k alie slava deveno, tiel kiel krom, kaj en la Rusa havas ĝuste tian sencon tre ofte. Ekzistas multaj verboj en Esperanto tiel kiel en la Latina havantaj tre eble du objektajn komplementojn. Ekzemple oni ludas pianon, oni ludas koncerton. Kial ne dirus oni ludi koncerton na piano Stein way?

Miville:Mi tre favoras al la ĉeesto de na en la internacia lingvo. Ne nur tial kial tiu prepozicio povus helpi esprimante la akuzativon ali-iel. Sed tial kial ĝi estas unue kaj precipe tre praktika prepozicio por signifi precizan punkton sur lineo de tempo aŭ de iu ajn alia unudimensia vojo, multe pli bone ol faras "ĉe" aŭ "je". Ĉe estas precipe por esti en spaca loko apartenanta a persono aŭ afero. Je estas tre vasta je la senco, sed uziĝas precipe kaj priorece por precizigi la kuntekston de iu ajn ago aŭ kvalito. Ekz : esti granda je la persona kulturo, sukcesi je la parenca moralo, esti proksima je kelkaj kilometroj, esti riĉa je mono sed malriĉa je la ama vido, vojaĝi je la tempo. Na almontras punkton laŭ lineo, plej ofte tempa aŭ agada. Alveni na la kvara horo punkte. Ĉeesti kun la profesoro na la nigra tabelo (fine de almarŝo). Sidi ĵus na la piano por ludi. Na servas precipe por diri la loko ĵus antaŭ la objekto de sia laboro aŭ alia agado. Do per vojo de konsekvenco, ne de esenco, ĝi enkondukas ankaŭ rektajn objektojn de agadaj verboj. Na estas prepozicio de rusa k alie slava deveno, tiel kiel krom, kaj en la Rusa havas ĝuste tian sencon tre ofte. Ekzistas multaj verboj en Esperanto tiel kiel en la Latina havantaj tre eble du objektajn komplementojn. Ekzemple oni ludas pianon, oni ludas koncerton. Kial ne dirus oni ludi koncerton na piano Stein way?

It's not worthy. Esperanto already has -on: Ekz. Pan-on. Moreover, you can say Sinjoron Pan. Esperanto doesn't need "na", only people, who doesn't learn properly the language, as yourself shows in your message, thinks that. To add another word for one of trickiest things in the language, in a language that aims to be easy to learn, is a really, really bad idea. Learn Esperanto properly instead of think in reforms. That is it.

What's more. Why you come back to this old thread in which you already posted a really long and useless text? I don't mind, anyway.