# Which voice to use and why?



## ohmyrichard

Hi, guys. If you are a native speaker, please help me with this: Which voice is better for the first half of the sentence, the active or the passive? 

Version 1: The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony this morning, but unexpectedly, he broke it. 

Version 2: This morning Tony borrowed the video game console I bought yesterday, but unexpectedly, he broke it.

I have been told by native speakers on this website and elsewhere that whenever we can use the active voice, rather than the passive, it is always better to use the active. In this sense, Version 2 is more straightforward and economic in wording. However, I personally like Version 1 better, for in my opinion, the placement of "The video game console I I bought yesterday" in the position of the subject gets it highlighted and the whole sentence is talking about the unexpectedness of my new game console getting damaged. As I a nonnative speaker lack the feel you native speakers of English have for the English language, my reasoning may be wrong. Please give me your choice and tell me why. 

By the way, if you find the version you think is better than the other but it still falls short of the way you native speakers express the same idea, please improve it to make it even better or perfect.

Thanks a lot.


----------



## bennymix

Version 1 is somewhat awkward, but I see your intention, to highlight the console.   IF the console has to come first, then a passive seems required;  so something like your first attempt may have to stand though it's not very graceful.



> The video game console I [...] bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony this morning, but unexpectedly, he broke it.



Slight improvement:  My video game console, bought yesterday, was loaned to Tony this morning, but by accident, he broke it.

Simpler: My video game console, bought yesterday, was loaned to Tony this morning and got damaged.


----------



## ohmyrichard

bennymix said:


> Version 1 is somewhat awkward, but I see your intention, to highlight the console.   IF the console has to come first, then a passive seems required;  so something like your first attempt may have to stand though it's not very graceful.
> 
> 
> 
> Slight improvement:  My video game console, bought yesterday, was loaned to Tony this morning, but by accident, he broke it.
> 
> Simpler: My video game console, bought yesterday, was loaned to Tony this morning and got damaged.



Your two improvements are great! Thank you. Still, would you please explain a littler bit further in what sense Version 1 is awkward? Awkward because of my use of "borrow" instead of "loan" or because of a lack of consistancy in the whole sentence (a lack of flow of information)? 

Besides, what do you think of Version 2? Did you mean in your post that this version is better than the first version?


----------



## bennymix

Version 2 reads much better, but as you noted, focuses on Tony.

Version 1 is awkward because of too many minor phrases that distract from the flow.   Note the ways in which I tried to improve it, by dropping them.


----------



## ohmyrichard

bennymix said:


> Version 2 reads much better, but as you noted, focuses on Tony.
> 
> Version 1 is awkward because of too many minor phrases that distract from the flow.   Note the ways in which I tried to improve it, by dropping them.



Thanks a lot, bennymix. Yes, I love your improvements over Version 1, especially the simpler. By the way, as a nonnative, I'm afraid in this situation it would be difficult for nonnatives to think of using "loan". I admit that this word did not come to me when I was trying to revise the two versions even though I have been learning and teaching English for many years. Can we also use "lend" in your improvements saying  "My video game console, bought yesterday, was lended to Tony this morning, but by accident, he broke it." or "My video game console, bought yesterday, was lended to Tony this morning and got damaged."?


----------



## velisarius

_ The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony this morning, but unexpectedly, he broke it. 

_
Are you using the passive to suggest that Tony borrowed the video game console without permission from you? That's the sort of idea I get because otherwise why use the passive? If your audience doesn't already know you bought a vgc yesterday it seems strange to start right out with it and hang the rest of your sentence on it.

You could highlight the console like this: "I bought a video game console yesterday, but Tony borrowed it / I lent it to Tony..."

If your audience already knows you bought the apparatus yesterday, you can say "My new video game console got broken; Tony borrowed it..."


----------



## bennymix

"was lent".



ohmyrichard said:


> Thanks a lot, bennymix. Yes, I love your improvements over Version 1, especially the simpler. By the way, as a nonnative, I'm afraid in this situation it would be difficult for nonnatives to think of using "loan". I admit that this word did not come to me when I was trying to revise the two versions even though I have been learning and teaching English for many years. Can we also use "lend" in your improvements saying  "My video game console, bought yesterday, was lended to Tony this morning, but by accident, he broke it." or "My video game console, bought yesterday, was lended to Tony this morning and got damaged."?


----------



## bennymix

Velisarius makes good points.    I have assumed the borrowing was authorized, in making my suggested revisions, but maybe that's not the case.


----------



## suzi br

Despite the well-meant alterations I feel obliged to tell you that  your original idea is flawed for the basic reason that you have been told before, the passive seems clumsy to native speakers used like this, and however much you fiddle with it, it still sounds clumsy and we prefer not to structure sentences this way.

You would be better using your second version.  OR, highlight the new nature of the console first, as velisarius suggested before you move on to what happened to it later.


----------



## ohmyrichard

bennymix said:


> "was lent".


Sorry for this mistake.


----------



## ohmyrichard

velisarius said:


> Are you using the passive to suggest that Tony borrowed the video game console without permission from you?
> You could highlight the console like this: "I bought a video game console yesterday, but Tony borrowed it / I lent it to Tony..."
> 
> If your audience already knows you bought the apparatus yesterday, you can say "My new video game console got broken; Tony borrowed it..."


Thanks. But I find it hard to figure out what caused you to think that "Tony borrowed the video game console that I bought yesterday without permission from me"? In what situation could this be?  Do you mean that if my wife lent my new video game console to Tony without my knowing it, I can only say "The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony" or "My wife lent the video game console I bought yesterday to Tony" and that if I permit Tony to borrow it, I can only say "I lent the video game console I bought yesterday to Tony" and I am not allowed to say "The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony"? What's more, if I say "Tony borrowed my new video game console and broke it", it is still not clear whether he borrowed from me or any other member of my family. Then do we always need to make it clear? It seems to me that in most cases we do not need to make it clear as it is something so important and often "from me" is implied. I've got confused about this hidden message conveyed by "The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony". I beg you to explain it to me. 

 Also, does the full sentence of one of your improvements go as follows?

"I bought a video game console yesterday, but Tony borrowed it / I lent it to Tony and he broke it."

 Besides, what is the complete form of your improvement of "My new video game console got broken; Tony borrowed it..."? To be honest, I find this improved sentence awkward. Why not "Tony borrowed my new video game console and broke it."? 

THANKS!


----------



## ohmyrichard

bennymix said:


> Velisarius makes good points.    I have assumed the borrowing was authorized, in making my suggested revisions, but maybe that's not the case.


What do you mean by "the borrowing was authorized"? Do you mean that if my wife lent my new video game console to Tony without my knowing it, I can only say "The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony" or "My wife lent the video game console I bought yesterday to Tony" and that if I permit Tony to borrow it, I can only say "I lent the video game console I bought yesterday to Tony"? I've got confused about this hidden message conveyed by "The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony". I beg you to explain it to me. THANKS!


----------



## velisarius

The passive version of your sentence sounds a little strange, that's why I thought _maybe _"The console was borrowed by Tony" contained a hint of "without my persmission". Normally I personally would say "I lent Tony my console and, not surprisingly really, he broke it."

_I bought a video game console yesterday, but Tony borrowed it / I lent it to Tony and he broke it._" That sounds fine to me, but doesn't show that you were surprised that Tony broke it.

You ask - 'Why not "Tony borrowed my new video game console and broke it."?'
That's fine, but with my "improvement" I was trying to make your "passive with the console brought to the front of the sentence" sound a little more natural. I thought that you wanted to see whether the passive version could work and why it wasn't as good as your second version.


----------



## ohmyrichard

velisarius said:


> The passive version of your sentence sounds a little strange, that's why I thought _maybe _"The console was borrowed by Tony" contained a hint of "without my persmission". Normally I personally would say "I lent Tony my console and, not surprisingly really, he broke it."
> 
> _I bought a video game console yesterday, but Tony borrowed it / I lent it to Tony and he broke it._" That sounds fine to me, but doesn't show that you were surprised that Tony broke it.
> 
> You ask - 'Why not "Tony borrowed my new video game console and broke it."?'
> That's fine, but with my "improvement" I was trying to make your "passive with the console brought to the front of the sentence" sound a little more natural. I thought that you wanted to see whether the passive version could work and why it wasn't as good as your second version.



Yes, I wanted to see whether the passive version could work as well or even better than the active version of the first half of the sentence to help focus on the intention to say that my new video game console getting broken makes me feel bad, rather than merely on the two actions or facts of borrowing and breaking.. You said you were trying to make my "passive with the console brought to the front of the sentence" sound a little more natural. However, my scrutiny of your improvements tells me that there is no passive used in any of them. It seems to me that you object to the use of the passive at least in this descriptive situation. In my OP, I said, "I have been told by native speakers on this website and elsewhere that whenever we can use the active voice, rather than the passive, it is always better to use the active." However, C_ollins COBUILD English Usage _says on p. 494 "You use the passive when you are more interested in the person or thing affected by the action than in the person or thing doing the action...". I like Version 1 better just for this very reason that I am more interested in my new video game console and want to convey the message that my new video game console's getting damaged makes me feel bad. Without any doubt, I like bennymix's revision of "My video game console, bought yesterday, was loaned to Tony this morning and got damaged" best, because just like in Version 2, in which there is consistancy in terms of the use of the active voice, in bennymix's revision there is no abrupt change in the use of the voice for no good reason. I do not know whether I have explained my thought clearly.

By the way, by now I still find it extremely hard to feel your feel that "The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony" hints that Tony borrowed the video game console without my permission. Doesn't "The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony" mean the same as "Tony borrowed the video game console I bought yesterday"? Please do not feel offended to hear that on ask.com I asked the same question, and one of the two answerers said, "i like the first one but i think a comma goes after yesterday. im no expert though.or even was borrowed this morning by tony Who, unexpectedly broke it", while the other said, "Well, I like the second one.  They are both ok, so just pick one." 

If you are willing to do it for me, please explain this issue a little bit further to help me understand it thoroughly. A big Thank-you to you!


----------



## Cenzontle

Why are you saying this?  Who is the audience?  Does that audience know who Tony is?  What does the audience know about the video game?
I'm trying to imagine the question that you are answering.  It could be 
• "How did this video game get broken?"; or perhaps 
• "What's the problem between you and Tony?"; or
• "Why are you so sad?"
Feed information to the listener in order from the known or expected to the unknown or surprising.  If this requires the passive voice, so be it!


> I have been told by native speakers on this website and elsewhere that whenever we can use the active voice, rather than the passive, it is always better to use the active.


Don't believe them.  Use the passive to control the order of information.  Just don't use it to avoid responsibility (as in "Mistakes were made").
P.S.:  Don't be embarrassed about confusion over the past tense of "lend"; many native-speakers have trouble with it, and that's why they use the verb "to loan" instead.


----------



## velisarius

To answer post #15,
In principle I would never hesitate to use the passive voice if that would convey my meaning better. I suggested  this type of passive with "get" as a way of bringing the video game console to the beginning of the sentence: 
_"My new video game console got broken; Tony borrowed it..."_ 

If you say "My video game console was borrowed by Tony", it sounds as though you are trying to hide the facts - as Cenzontle says in post #16, the passive voice is sometimes used to evade responsibility: "Mistakes were made" is a classic example. A child might say "Mum, the vase got broken" instead of "Mum, I broke the vase."

Cenzontle has made some good points. When you compose the sentence you need to bear in mind what information is known to your audience and what may need explaining.


----------



## ohmyrichard

velisarius said:


> To answer post #15,
> In principle I would never hesitate to use the passive voice if that would convey my meaning better. I suggested  this type of passive with "get" as a way of bringing the video game console to the beginning of the sentence:
> _"My new video game console got broken; Tony borrowed it..."_
> 
> If you say "My video game console was borrowed by Tony", it sounds as though you are trying to hide the facts - as Cenzontle says in post #16, the passive voice is sometimes used to evade responsibility: "Mistakes were made" is a classic example. A child might say "Mum, the vase got broken" instead of "Mum, I broke the vase."
> 
> Cenzontle has made some good points. When you compose the sentence you need to bear in mind what information is known to your audience and what may need explaining.


Thanks a lot for your patience and time. 

I agree with you that a child's saying "Mum, the vase got broken", which deliberately omits the doer of the action of breaking the vase, surely is for the purpose of trying to hide a fact whose exposure will probably lead to the child's physical punishment or being scolded. And the same reasoning applies to "Mistakes were made". Nevertheless, in "The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony" there is no omission of the doer of the action and I am not hiding anything. Furthermore, in post #13, you said I thought _maybe _"The console was borrowed by Tony" contained a hint of "without my persmission". Now you say "The console was borrowed by Tony" implies responsibility evasion; however, responsibility evasion and no permission are totally different things. 

 I also find that your sentence of _"My new video game console got broken; Tony borrowed it..."_ leaves the impression on the reader or me at least that the speaker of this sentence is not sure whether Tony is responsible for the damage, maybe someone else who used the console at Tony's home broke it.  And it seems "Tony borrowed the video game console I bought yesterday and got it damaged." sounds much better and is clearer than _"My new video game console got broken; Tony borrowed it...". 

_You said "In principle I would never hesitate to use the passive voice if that would convey my meaning better." Would you please give me one or two example sentences in which the passive voice is used but not to shun responsibility?


----------



## JamesM

"Got it damaged" sounds like he arranged for someone else to damage it.   "Damaged it" is better.  "Tony borrowed the video game console I bought yesterday and broke it/damaged it" seems very clear to me.  The difference between damaged and broke is that it may still be in usable condition if it is damaged but not if it's broken.


----------



## bennymix

> Would you please give me one or two example sentences in which the passive voice is used but not to shun responsibility?



[a]Your console is broken; I caused it.
*Your console was broken on my watch;  I'll pay for it.**

ADDED:  Noting Velisarius: A true passive--

[a*] Your console has been broken; I caused it.

More responsibility for ?

[b*] Your console was broken by my hand.*


----------



## ohmyrichard

Cenzontle said:


> Why are you saying this?  Who is the audience?  Does that audience know who Tony is?  What does the audience know about the video game?
> I'm trying to imagine the question that you are answering.  It could be
> • "How did this video game get broken?"; or perhaps
> • "What's the problem between you and Tony?"; or
> • "Why are you so sad?"
> Feed information to the listener in order from the known or expected to the unknown or surprising.  If this requires the passive voice, so be it!
> 
> Don't believe them.  Use the passive to control the order or information.  Just don't use it to avoid responsibility (as in "Mistakes were made").
> P.S.:  Don't be embarrassed about confusion over the past tense of "lend"; many native-speakers have trouble with it, and that's why they use the verb "to loan" instead.



Thanks a lot. 

Would you please take a look at my OP and tell me which version you like better and why? If you also think Version 1 is not as good as Version 2, then would you please improve it for me? Can you retain the passive voice in the first half of the version in your revising? 

You said "Use the passive to control the order or information" in your reply. Then would you please give one or two example sentences of this nature?

 Thanks.


----------



## velisarius

bennymix said:


> Your console is broken; I caused it.
> Your console was broken on my watch;  I'll pay for it.



The first example isn't passive I think. The second example shuns personal responsibility for the breakage - it implies that someone else broke it while I was responsible for looking after it.


----------



## Cenzontle

> Would you please take a look at my OP and tell me which version you like better and why?


I don't see any problem with either of them.  
The first one seems good for a listener who knows nothing about the game.  Maybe it answers "Why are you angry?"
In both of them, the listener seems to know who Tony is; otherwise he might be "my friend Tony" or "Tony, the neighbor kid" (explaining what he is to me).
The second one mentions Tony near the beginning; from this I conclude that he is "familiar information".  
Maybe the conversation is already about him, and here's another thing he has done wrong.


> Would you please give me one or two example sentences in which the passive voice is used but not to shun responsibility?


Scholarly, academic writers sometimes overuse the passive voice, although not to shun responsibility, because someone told them never to write "I".
It's a false  dogma, something like the rule "Never use the passive voice"; and of course they come into conflict with each other.
So you occasionally read awkward sentences like "Seven subjects were interviewed by the author."  Don't imitate this unless the person you're writing for insists on it.


> You said "Use the passive to control the order or information" in your reply. Then would you please give one or two example sentences of this nature?


Here's a simple example.  I want to make a statement that links an author to a book.
Based on my own experience, the book is more well-known than the author.  So I'm more likely to say (1) than (2):
(1) _Harry Potter_ was written by J. K. Rowling.  (Familiar information first.)
(2) J. K. Rowling wrote _Harry Potter_.  (Unfamiliar information first.)


----------



## ohmyrichard

Cenzontle said:


> I don't see any problem with either of them.
> The first one seems good for a listener who knows nothing about the game.  Maybe it answers "Why are you angry?"
> In both of them, the listener seems to know who Tony is; otherwise he might be "my friend Tony" or "Tony, the neighbor kid" (explaining what he is to me).
> The second one mentions Tony near the beginning; from this I conclude that he is "familiar information".
> Maybe the conversation is already about him, and here's another thing he has done wrong.
> 
> Scholarly, academic writers sometimes overuse the passive voice, although not to shun responsibility, because someone told them never to write "I".
> It's a false  dogma, something like the rule "Never use the passive voice"; and of course they come into conflict with each other.
> So you occasionally read awkward sentences like "Seven subjects were interviewed by the author."  Don't imitate this unless the person you're writing for insists on it.
> 
> Here's a simple example.  I want to make a statement that links an author to a book.
> Based on my own experience, the book is more well-known than the author.  So I'm more likely to say (1) than (2):
> (1) _Harry Potter_ was written by J. K. Rowling.  (Familiar information first.)
> (2) J. K. Rowling wrote _Harry Potter_.  (Unfamiliar information first.)



Thank you very much for explaining everything so clearly,Cenzontle.  

Yes, you are absolutely right that the sentence in a paragraph usually progresses from old information to new information and then the next sentence may begin with the new information in the previous sentence, which now becomes old information, and proceeds to give still newer information. And this process repeats in a paragraph and in this way information flows and the reader will be kept anticipated about what comes next. But there are exceptions and the sentence of "The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony, but unexpected, he broke it." is a sentence which begins with new information. Is my understanding of this sentence-structuring issue correct?


----------



## wandle

If I understand correctly, the main aim of the sentence is say how quickly and unexpectedly the device went from brand new to broken.
If so, I would simply put the events one after the other: 

_'I bought this game console yesterday, lent it to Tony and now it's broken'_ (or, if you are positively blaming Tony: _'and he broke it'_).
The passive voice does not help with a simple sequence like this; on the other hand, there are cases where it does so, or is necessary.


----------



## Cenzontle

> "The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony, but unexpected[ly], he broke it." is a sentence which begins with new information. Is my understanding of this sentence-structuring issue correct?


Yes, to some degree.
This sentence could occur in a context in which the listener has never heard of the console, and in that case the first four words would be "new" information.
Another "rule" (if you will) of "topic-comment", "theme-rheme" discourse analysis is that references to oneself are always "old", or rather expected, information.
People are expected to talk about themselves.
So, as the listener hears the initial "The video game console...", he/she wonders (for a few milliseconds) "What do you mean by '*the*' console?  I don't know any console?"
But he/she is quickly "rescued" from this puzzlement by the reference to the first-person singular, "I bought".  "Oh, *that*'s how it relates to us," thinks the listener.


----------



## Cenzontle

Thanks for your clarity, wandle (#24).
You have the most expected information ("I") in first place, the events in chronological order, and the surprise (if the listener didn't know about the breaking) at the end.
This seems like the easiest order for the listener to understand, and no passive voice is needed.


----------



## bennymix

I think this works, passive:  My brand-new 
[*] console got broken when Tony borrowed it {OR, when I lent it to Tony}.

Insert --yesterday!-- if necessary.


----------



## ohmyrichard

bennymix said:


> I think this works, passive:  My brand-new
> [*] console got broken when Tony borrowed it {OR, when I lent it to Tony}.
> 
> Insert --yesterday!-- if necessary.


Thanks a lot. Anyway, how can it be that just when Tony borrowed it, my brand-new console got broken? It is only possible that when he or someone else was using it, the console got damaged. It was damaged either because the user pressed the buttons too hard or because the user got it dropped to the floor hard and smashed or because the user accidentally trod on it without knowing that the console had slid onto the floor. 

Do you native speakers of English really say "My brand-new console got broken WHEN Tony borrowed it" to mean "My brand-new console got broken AFTER Tony borrowed it" or "Tony borrowed my brand-new console and got it broken/ broke it while using it"?  This is something really very interesting about how you actually use English. 

 Looking forward to your reply. Thanks.


----------



## ohmyrichard

Cenzontle said:


> Yes, to some degree.
> This sentence could occur in a context in which the listener has never heard of the console, and in that case the first four words would be "new" information.
> Another "rule" (if you will) of "topic-comment", "theme-rheme" discourse analysis is that references to oneself are always "old", or rather expected, information.
> People are expected to talk about themselves.
> So, as the listener hears the initial "The video game console...", he/she wonders (for a few milliseconds) "What do you mean by '*the*' console?  I don't know any console?"
> But he/she is quickly "rescued" from this puzzlement by the reference to the first-person singular, "I bought".  "Oh, *that*'s how it relates to us," thinks the listener.




 To put it in a nutshell, you seemed to have intended to say that people in most cases prefer using the active to using the passive. That is, an active voice sentence starts with the doer of an action, and the placement of the doer at the very beginning of the sentence is your "[people] talk[ing] about themselves".  Am I right in interpreting your intended meaning?

BTW, your explanation makes me think that we, the human species, are all egoists to some extent. ... I'm kidding.


----------



## ohmyrichard

wandle said:


> on the other hand, there are cases where it does so, or is necessary.


Thanks for your participation in the discussion. Would you please give me some examples where the passive voice does help or is necessary.


----------



## bennymix

Yes, it's a little inexact, as we might *e, outside of court. "when T borrowed it" does suggest
the time of (starting) borrowing, but can also be read (more plausibly), "when T was borrowing {the time period} it {=had it on loan}."   Note there is still ambiguity between the *start of a borrowing (action) and its *continuance (state).  Hence "while T was borrowing it" is a bit clearer.

If you want exactness, "My brand new console got broken while Tony had it on loan"




ohmyrichard said:



			Thanks a lot. Anyway, how can it be that just when Tony borrowed it, my brand-new console got broken? It is only possible that when he or someone else was using it, the console got damaged. It was damaged either because the user pressed the buttons too hard or because the user got it dropped to the floor hard and smashed or because the user accidentally trod on it without knowing that the console had slid onto the floor. 

Do you native speakers of English really say "My brand-new console got broken WHEN Tony borrowed it" to mean "My brand-new console got broken AFTER Tony borrowed it" or "Tony borrowed my brand-new console and got it broken/ broke it while using it"?  This is something really very interesting about how you actually use English. 

 Looking forward to your reply. Thanks. 




Click to expand...

*


----------



## ohmyrichard

bennymix said:


> Yes, it's a little inexact, as we might me, outside of court. "when T borrowed it" does suggest
> the time of (starting) borrowing, but can also be read (more plausibly), "when T was borrowing {the time period} it {=had it on loan}."   Note there is still ambiguity between the *start of a borrowing (action) and its *continuance (state).  Hence "while T was borrowing it" is a bit clearer.
> 
> If you want exactness, "My brand new console got broken while Tony had it on loan"



Thank you for your great explanation, bennymix. 

Your revision " My brand new console got broken while Tony had it on loan" is marvelous. But is "My brand new console got broken AFTER Tony borrowed it" also OK or even used more often in your daily life?  Or do you mean that "My brand new console got broken WHEN Tony borrowed it" is the most frequently used in your daily life conversational situations"? 

I never want to pit you against anyone, but the fact is that in this thread some who have also participated in this discussion simply object to any use of the passive, but your "got broken" is using the passive. Cenzontle insists that a sentence usually begins with old information and later on or at its end gives new information. However, the beginning part of "My brand new console" of your sentence can never be new information in whatever situation. Could it be that some guys in this thread are overthinking about this language issue? And could it be that there is nothing wrong with the two versions in my OP at least grammatically but most native speakers would express this meaning by using the active or prefer to use the active to express any idea if possible while still there are some native speakers who would express this idea the way Version 1 goes or all native speakers of English would sometimes express this idea the way Version 1 goes intentionally or unintentionally? To be frank, while reading the answers you guys have given to my questions, my mind gets bogged down and cleared up alternately and endlessly. I find sometimes the claims made by you native speakers are in conflict with each other. Have you native speakers got a consensus over the issue raised in my OP which can be summarized in clear words? 

Looking forward to your comment. Thank you!


----------



## wandle

ohmyrichard said:


> Which voice is better for the first half of the sentence, the active or the passive?
> Version 1: The video game console I bought yesterday was borrowed by Tony this morning, but unexpectedly, he broke it.
> Version 2: This morning Tony borrowed the video game console I bought yesterday, but unexpectedly, he broke it.


That use of the passive is grammatically correct, but we would probably not use the passive in that context.


> Would you please give me some examples where the passive voice does help or is necessary.


Here are a couple of examples from the internet:

ParcelForce
_To ensure that your parcel has been delivered safely, we need a signature_.

AdviceGuide
_If your post has been delivered to someone else’s home, the person who receives it is not allowed to open it. Post cannot be opened if someone knows or suspects it has been delivered to the wrong address.

If you believe your mail has been opened by someone else or tampered with, you should report it._


----------



## ohmyrichard

wandle said:


> That use of the passive is grammatically correct, but we would probably not use the passive in that context.



Thanks, wandle. But I still find it so hard to figure out what is so special about that context, although I, as I already said in my OP, agree that Version 2 is straightforward and thus better. Can you put it in words what is so special about that context or what is the difference between that context and the contexts of your three example sentences taken from the internet? What if another buddy of mine comes to me to borrow my brand new console? Then in this different situation, can I say "My new console has been lent/loaned to Tony and broken by him." ? Is this remark using the passive also very awkward and again always avoided by you native speakers of English in this situation? Is it still better to use the active and instead say "I have lent/loaned my new console and he has broken it"?


----------



## wandle

In those examples about things being delivered, the writer wants to make a general statement which remains true no matter who does the delivery.
The passive voice allows the meaning to be focused on the action, regardless who may have performed it.

In your scenario with this clumsy fellow Tony, firstly, it is only one person involved and secondly the identity of the person is relevant to the story.
Here the passive is not only not needed, it tends to get in the way of simple narration.


----------



## ohmyrichard

wandle said:


> In those examples about things being delivered, the writer wants to make a general statement which remains true no matter who does the delivery.
> The passive voice allows the meaning to be focused on the action, regardless who may have performed it.
> 
> In your scenario with this clumsy fellow Tony, firstly, it is only one person involved and secondly the identity of the person is relevant to the story.
> Here the passive is not only not needed, it tends to get in the way of simple narration.



After reading your further explanation, I've come to understand very well why in that situation implied in my OP the active is preferred. But does your reasoning also apply to the slightly different situation I thought of in the second half of my previous post? That is, what if another buddy of mine comes to me to borrow my brand new console? Then in this different situation, can I say "My new console has been lent/loaned to Tony and broken by him." ? Is this remark using the passive also very awkward and again always avoided by you native speakers of English? Is it still better to use the active and instead say "I have lent/loaned my new console to my neighbor Tony and he has broken it"? Would you please address this subtly different issue?  You may have found me stubborn, but I love this language and want to know as much about how English is actually used ( or better to say "how you native speakers actually use English?) as possible.


----------



## wandle

Well, the situation in the second example is basically the same as in the first, is it not? 
I had your second 'Tony' example in mind, as well as the first, when I wrote this:


> In your scenario with this clumsy fellow Tony, firstly, it is only one  person involved and secondly the identity of the person is relevant to  the story.
> Here the passive is not only not needed, it tends to get in the way of simple narration.


----------



## Myridon

ohmyrichard said:


> Then in this different situation, can I say "My new console has been lent/loaned to Tony and broken by him." ? Is this remark using the passive also very awkward and again always avoided by you native speakers of English?


This sentence allows the existence of a third person. "John loaned my new console to Tony." and "I loaned my new console to Tony." are both "My new console was loaned to Tony."  Because we like to talk about ourselves whenever possible and I have avoided doing so, a listener might assume that the doer is a third person. In "and broken by him," the breaker is obviously not "I", but I think it could refer to either John or Tom if you assume the existence of John.
"My" puts me in the context.  The sentence is still partially about me, yet I seem to be avoiding "I".


----------



## ohmyrichard

Myridon said:


> This sentence allows the existence of a third person. "John loaned my new console to Tony." and "I loaned my new console to Tony." are both "My new console was loaned to Tony."  Because we like to talk about ourselves whenever possible and I have avoided doing so, a listener might assume that the doer is a third person. In "and broken by him," the breaker is obviously not "I", but I think it could refer to either John or Tom if you assume the existence of John.
> "My" puts me in the context.  The sentence is still partially about me, yet I seem to be avoiding "I".



Thanks. So, you meant to say that what you will say is "I have lent/loaned my new console to Tony and he has broken it."? Or should it be " I have lent/loaned my new console to Tony BUT he has broken it."?


----------



## Cenzontle

ohmyrichard, I'm enjoying the development of this conversation,
but remember that people sometimes search for discussions here on the basis of the thread title.
This new question (AND vs. BUT) probably should be the topic of a new thread.


----------



## ohmyrichard

Cenzontle said:


> ohmyrichard, I'm enjoying the development of this conversation,
> but remember that people sometimes search for discussions here on the basis of the thread title.
> This new question (AND vs. BUT) probably should be the topic of a new thread.


Thank you for reminding me of that.


----------



## ohmyrichard

My thanks go to all that have responded to my questions and helped me to better understand the issue under discussion. With your help I have gained a better understanding of this issue and of how to use English properly. Thank you all for your time and patience.


----------

