Since you raised a question about the passive, Geek, it might be useful to point out that the OVS order in Esperanto is often used where in English we might use a passive.

For example:

Mi faris mian kontribuon, sed la plej grandan parton de la laboro faris nia prezidanto.

could in English be,

I did some of it but the bulk of the work was done by our president.

In a similar line of thought, when in English we would say "edited by Mary Smith" or "translated by John Williams", in Esperanto we often say something like "redaktis Mary Smith" or "tradukis John Williams". Alternately, we could have said "redaktita de Mary Smith" and "tradukita de John Williams", but the verb version is more succinct, and it's another example of variable word order (verb then subject, in this case)

I remember reading/hearing in a class that the most important place for the passive was if the subject/active component was unknown, e.g. "Someone made this in 1945" = "This was made in 1945" etc.

ceigered:I remember reading/hearing in a class that the most important place for the passive was if the subject/active component was unknown, e.g. "Someone made this in 1945" = "This was made in 1945" etc.

Yes, but for such cases we have oni in Esperanto (which doesn't sound as strange as English "one"), so even there the passive isn't necessary.

darkweasel:

ceigered:I remember reading/hearing in a class that the most important place for the passive was if the subject/active component was unknown, e.g. "Someone made this in 1945" = "This was made in 1945" etc.

Yes, but for such cases we have oni in Esperanto (which doesn't sound as strange as English "one"), so even there the passive isn't necessary.

I get what you're saying but I don't really agree - that seems to be overextending what "oni" is useful for. "Oni" expects a person or personality to take its place (e.g. you/he/she/it/we/me/them), but doesn't work to well replacing other things. I mean, you're theoretically right that "tiun ĉi turon konstruis oni en la jaro 2005" could replace a passive statement, but it doesn't really feel right.

Similarly, one could say "Oni devas iri je la turo" instead of "al la turo", but one expects certain meanings from "je" which would be anything but "al". Similarly, "oni" gives a strange impression that the meaning is something other than reflecting on when a tower was built.

In short, it seems OK but it's like you're broadcasting additional meanings which are in fact non-existent. "La turo estis konstruita en (la jaro dekdekdek-a-dek)" avoids this accidental insinuation of new meaning by just forgetting about oni.

Sorry for my badly written thoughts on the matter

(also, those thoughts I pseudo-quoted in my post before this were not in relation to English grammar at all and not from a native English speaker, they were actually in relation to another language and the idea of a passive statement in any language intended for learners of a second language, just for general information)

EDIT: also note I'm not ruling out "oni" statements instead of passive statements, but rather asking for potential caution in its use, since it seems to be a complicated work around for something that shouldn't be that way.

EDIT2: Section 6, verbs. This does promote and give examples of "oni" passive statements, but I still don't like it too much as a "catch-all" method given its association with people. Colour me biased if you want, but it may be something deep within my learning style that drives me to think this way. So in terms of passives involving "people", "oni" seems fine, but I don't think it works with concepts outside of "people" or transcending "people". This however has implications with the way we think of verbs and animate/inanimate objects, since according to classic thought, only an animate object can perform a verb (normally, and that explains why inanimate Latin nouns tend to share the accusative ending with the nominative). It seems to get us into that ugly mess of whether to anthropomorphise or dehumanise things...

Ceiger, as regards section the section 6 verbs account of the passive, I would certainly go along with the idea that not infreqently X-ita is just a verbal adjective.

So if I refer to a broken bottle as a rompita botelo I am describing the state of the bottle (which has arisen from an action)in much the same way that I can describe a green bottle as a verda botelo.

However if I say la domo estis konstruita en la pasinta jarcento, I'm not saying something like la domo estis ruĝa.

After all, the domo might not be ruĝa now, and a subsequent event will not change the truth of the statement that the house was built in the last century (the house won't become nekonstruita a few years later)

I am not ascribing a quality that might change (a feature of adjectival description), I'm reporting an act.

So that use seems to be a genuine passive and estis konstruita can be considered a form of the verb.

And if I say la fenestro estis fermita I might be talking about the state of the window at the time, or I might be expressing the idea that someone closed the window - but in the passive. Only context makes it clear.

This difference becomes clear if I say la kongreso estis (mal)fermita. Mostly this will be accompanied by a mention of by whom and when. An act is performed.

Interesting... So the idea of "passive" in Esperanto is slightly separated from the idea of a verbal adjective? (I must admit I'm a bit confused by your words )

Regarding this notion of passive etc there seems to be a truckload of gray areas here and there!

All I'm saying Ceiger is that I think the Bulgarian Esperantist referred to in Harlow's article has gone too far, in lumping all X-ita's with the adjectives and denying that there is a genuinely passive form of the verb in Esperanto.

I expect that you can find 'grey areas' - that is sentences where it is not clear whether the use of the participle is adjectival or is a straight verbal use.

But to assert that Esperanto doesn't have a passive is over the top.

This double role of the passive participle form is, perhaps, found in most European languages (we have it in English and the French have it too).

Zamenhof probably just thought we should following this pattern also for Esperanto.
Since having two words for say 'buried' - using one in 'the law concerning buried treasure' and another in 'the treaure was buried in a field by the thieves' would be too difficult for Europeans.

Incidentally, this discussion illustrates how valuable Esperanto can be for educating students about language.

When you learn a 'natural language' you just accept the usage of the native speakers - if it's seems a bit illogical then you don't query it, you just have to accept it.

Esperanto on the other hand, encourages logical analysis, since the appeal to usage has so much less force in the case of an artifical language.

Thank you for that explanation Sudanglo - I know understand what you were saying .

I would agree with your points there, when I read that I felt like it was a bit too revolutionary to be quite so true, since a passive function is more title given to something after grammatical analysis rather than a name you can give to any grammar feature regardless of whether it is indeed a passive or not.

As far as non-European languages go, even Indonesian, a moderately simple language (provided you're good at vocabulary learning or know a lot of Sanskrit, Dutch, Arabic or general Austronesian langauges!) has a passive form, made by using di and putting it in front of a verb stem.

E.g. Maharaja hamba, bahasa ini sudah/selesai dibuat tahun 20XX oleh Zamenhoff.

(Great king of I your thrall, this language was made in the year 20XX by Zamenhoff.)

(Reĝego de mi, via sklavo, tiu ĉi lingvo estis konstruita en la jaro 20XX de Zamenhoff).

(BTW Sudanglo, feel free to shorten that completely to "ceige")

I will just hop in and say that though "fermiti" is technically a valid form, "esti fermita" is more common and easier to understand.

Sorry if this is off track!