# Passive, Potential, Imperative forms of 効く



## Pacerier

Hi all, I've read a grammar book that says "効く" has no imperative, potential and no passive forms.

I'm wondering is it true that, for example, "効け" (the imperative version of 効く) is considered "grammatically correct",

or is it considered a "grammatically incorrect" usage?


----------



## Ocham

Pacerier said:


> Hi all, I've read a grammar book that says "効く" has no potential and no passive forms.I'm wondering is it true that "効け" is a seldom used word that is considered grammatically correct, or is it considered a grammatically incorrect usage?



I've never heard nor seen 効け. I didn't know either that it is considered grammatically correct. In what situation do you say "効け"? To medicine?


----------



## Flaminius

I think *Pacerier* is asking whether there exist such forms as 効かれる and 効ける (morphologically expected from 効く).

効かれる does not exist either as the potential or the passive form.  Since the potential reading of 効かれる does not exist, it follows that the dedicated reduced form  効ける also does not exist.  The reason is simple; the unmodified verb itself means "to have potency," so it is redundant to attach the potential suffix.

*効かれる in sense of passive could have existed for expressing the passive of adversity, but I don't think I use it.


----------



## xiaolijie

効く basically means "is effective (which includes the future sense of "can be effective)". So, even if you can change the form into a passive or potential, how will these new forms be different in meaning from the original non-passive, non-potential form? What will you gain by changing 効く into the passive or potential? So now you know that if the forms doesn't add anything to the meaning, they're generally not used, even if available.


----------



## Pacerier

Hey guys I've edited the question to make it clearer.


----------



## Pacerier

Ocham said:


> I've never heard nor seen 効け. I didn't know either that it is considered grammatically correct. In what situation do you say "効け"? To medicine?



Yes that's what I mean, is 効け "grammatically correct" (so we can say it to a medicine), or is it not even recognized as a word, so we can't even say it to a medicine (in other words, it's "out of the language", just like how "あいう" doesn't make sense at all)


----------



## xiaolijie

When we say something is "incorrect", we tend to think there is a way of correcting it. But if you look at something and command "効け!", people are more likely to think something is wrong with you, and not with "効け!"

Now, try & think if the sentence quoted below is "correct":

_"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."_ (N.C)


----------



## Pacerier

Yes that's what I'm saying. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." is considered syntactically correct.


Whereas "I goed home" is syntactically wrong.


So I was wondering, is 効け considered syntactically correct or syntactically wrong?


Which of this is correct:


1. 利く is a "normal verb", hence 効け is the imperative form of 利く


2. 利く belongs to a special class of verb that has no notion of imperative forms, hence 効け is syntactically wrong (just like how "I goed home" is syntactically wrong).


----------



## Flaminius

I think "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is syntactically correct but semantically tenuous.  In other words, you have to think of a very special or strange context for the utterance to be meaningful.  Or, you may have to think in metaphors.  Literally, for example, "colorless green ideas" is full of contradictions.

効け is tenuous but less so than Chomsky's sentence.  While 効かれる and 効ける are outright wrong, You may hear 効け in a few rare, if not odd, occasions.  If the protagonist in an anime is about to deliver his specialty strike at the arch-enemy, he may exclaim, "効け、なんとかかんとかパーンチ!" while his knuckle is absorbed into the enemy's cheek at an eerily slow pace. 

 If a car is skidding out of control at a tricky curve, the driver may say, "効け、効いてくれ" as he hits the brake.


----------



## Pacerier

Flaminius said:


> The reason is simple; the unmodified verb itself means "to have potency," so it is redundant to attach the potential suffix.



Hm, I'm getting abit confused here, what about this example sentence "それをしたらブレーキが効ける" -> "If you did that the brakes can work."


----------



## Flaminius

It is incorrect.
ブレーキが効く。


----------

