mnlg:

tommjames:

La branĉo rompitis.

I had in fact considered that form previously, but I thought (wrongly) that it means exactly the same as "La branĉo estis rompita"

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, it *does* mean the same. It's just less clear and personally I would never use it outside poetry or word games.

Well what I meant by 'not the same' was more to do with what it emphasizes than its actual meaning. I saw it as emphasizing the action of being broken, rather than the state of having been broken.

I think actually though that this form isn't what I was looking for at all, as -it- by itself doesn't merely mean passive, rather "past" passive, which implies some kind of state that comes after the actual action.

The problem I have with something like "La branĉo abrupte/senkaŭze/memfare fariĝis rompita" is that this seems to describe something for which "iĝ" was already specifically designed for. Seems to me that any additions we'd make ought to be to indicate the passivity, rather than the lack of it.

Perhaps something like "La branĉo fare rompiĝis" would do the trick. I don't know a great deal about "fare" but I've been advised it can work in this way, and it would seem to make the point about passivity quite well. Do you think it works ok?

One interesting thing I've noticed is that this potential for ambiguity doesn't actually exist with certain kinds of transitive verbs. For example "murdi". Since the act of murdering by definition requires both a murderer and a victim, it would be quite obvious that something like "murdiĝis" should be interpreted as passive, since it wouldn't really have any other meaning if it wasn't. The same isn't really true of a verb like "rompi". Something can break without there being an identifiable breaker, and for that reason one might be confused as to what "rompiĝis" actually meant.

In the end though I think I'm just going to do what it seems everyone else does, and just say "La branĉo estis rompita". I don't like it but it does seem that it is by far the most common way of showing the action, despite its obvious confusability with the state of having been broken.

Rogir:Actually, there are some people who would use 'far' instead of 'de' to indicate the agent in a passive construction. Especially on Facebook it's quite common.

Surely that's in combination with, as opposed to instead of? Like "rompiĝis far de.." ?

tommjames:I don't know a great deal about "fare" but I've been advised it can work in this way, and it would seem to make the point about passivity quite well. Do you think it works ok?

Personally, no. I don't know what you would mean by that.

"La branĉo estis rompita". I don't like it but it does seem that it is by far the most common way of showing the action, despite its obvious confusability with the state of having been broken.

I think you are making a big deal out of this

Ιf you really need to specify a certain quality or feature that would otherwise be too unclear or could be overlooked, you should express it openly. If something gets broken by itself, just say that it got broken by itself. If something was broken when you found it, but it is not broken now, just say that. I understand (and usually encourage) the attempt to find a more elegant, less verbose way to express the same meaning, but if you seriously aim for clarity, and fewer words would compromise it (for one reason or another), then I think that the choice should be obvious, as much as it's not what you would prefer.