讯息： 7
语言: English
Oŝo-Jabe (显示个人资料) 2009年8月25日上午1:34:32
The passive voice is just a way to change the focus of a sentence from the "doer" to the "doee." The following English sentences are examples of the passive voice:
1. The mouse was eaten by the cat.
2. The chair was rocked as if by wind.
English uses forms of "to be" and "to have" to introduce the participle (which often ends in -en or -ed) while the thing that is doing the action is preceded by "by."
In Esperanto it's more regular with the form of "_o(j) + est_ + _ita(j) (+ de + _o(j))" So the above sentences become:
1. La muso estis manĝita de la kato.
2. La seĝo estis lulita kvazaŭ de vento.
The passive voice is also used in English, in a few instances that can be better expressed with -iĝ in Esperanto.
3. The glass was shattered.
3a. La vitro frakasiĝis.
3b. La vitro estis frakasita.
The nuance here is that in 3a the glass undergoing a change in state, while in 3b it's implied that something caused the glass to shatter even if that something is not named in the sentence.
1. The mouse was eaten by the cat.
2. The chair was rocked as if by wind.
English uses forms of "to be" and "to have" to introduce the participle (which often ends in -en or -ed) while the thing that is doing the action is preceded by "by."
In Esperanto it's more regular with the form of "_o(j) + est_ + _ita(j) (+ de + _o(j))" So the above sentences become:
1. La muso estis manĝita de la kato.
2. La seĝo estis lulita kvazaŭ de vento.
The passive voice is also used in English, in a few instances that can be better expressed with -iĝ in Esperanto.
3. The glass was shattered.
3a. La vitro frakasiĝis.
3b. La vitro estis frakasita.
The nuance here is that in 3a the glass undergoing a change in state, while in 3b it's implied that something caused the glass to shatter even if that something is not named in the sentence.
Rogir (显示个人资料) 2009年8月25日下午12:49:21
Actually, there are three main ways to translate a passive voice into Esperanto, depending on what you want to focus on.
The window was broken by the stone.
La fenestro estis rompita de la ŝtono.
La fenestro rompiĝis de/pro la ŝtono. (not sure about the preposition)
La fenestron rompis la ŝtono.
The window was broken by the stone.
La fenestro estis rompita de la ŝtono.
La fenestro rompiĝis de/pro la ŝtono. (not sure about the preposition)
La fenestron rompis la ŝtono.
tommjames (显示个人资料) 2009年8月25日下午1:34:04
Rogir:La fenestro rompiĝis de/pro la ŝtono.The iĝ suffix doesn't show passivity, rather it shows change to a certain state. This may be useful to express ideas for which in other languages such as English the passive voice is usually used, but rompiĝis does -not- mean to get broken (by someone/thing else).
Rogir:(not sure about the preposition)Since rompiĝis is not passive it makes no sense to show the agent of the action in the normal way, as you would with the passive participles. You can however show the agent of the action as the -reason- for the state change, with pro. You can also use de, but don't confuse it with the usage you would see with the participles. Iĝis de forms are virtually the same as iĝis pro, as shown in PMEG.
Showing the agent as the reason for the change in state rather than the fact that he actually did the action upon the subject in that moment will often be insufficient for your purpose. For example, to say the man was shot by the assassin you would translate la viro estis mortpafita de la murdisto. Here de shows that the murderer -actually did- this action, upon the subject.
However, la viro mortpafiĝis pro la murdisto would simply show the change in state and link the murderer to this in a causal way. In English you'd say the man was shot because of the assassin, which of course loses the essential message. There are a number of ways a man might get shot "because" of the murderer, without it actually being the case that the murderer -did- the murdering.
