# passive sentence: indirect object as subject



## Nino83

Hello everyone.  

In some languages, like English and Japanese, both the direct and the indirect object can become the subject of a passive sentence. 

John gives Mary a book. The book is given to Mary by John. Mary is given a book by John.  
JohnがMaryに本を与える. 本がJohnによってMaryに与えられる. MaryがJohnによって本を与えられる. 

My try in Chinese:  
John给Mary一本书. 
一本书Mary被John给. 
Mary一本书被John给.  

Thank you


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

Of course you can do the same in Chinese, but you should use another character 送.

一本书被小明送给了小红。
小红被小明送了一本书。


----------



## Nino83

Thank you.

I found that in Chinese, with "give" verbs, only the DO can be passivized, while with "get" verbs (like "steal"), only the IO can be passivized.

John sòng-le nà běn shū gěi Mary. John sòng gěi Mary nà běn shū. John sòng Mary nà běn shū.
Nà běn shū bèi John sòng gěi Mary le. Nà běn shū bèi John sòng-le Mary. Nà běn shū bèi John sòng-le Mary. > these are correct
Mary bèi John sòng gěi nà běn shū. Mary bèi John sòng-le nà běn shū gěi. Mary bèi John sòng-le nà běn shū. > these are not correct

Can you confirm this?

http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2006_4_05_9028.pdf (page 34)
http://dl6.globalstf.org/index.php/jlss/article/viewFile/563/579


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

It's beyond my ability to give you a conclusion that it's right or wrong to say 80(c) in your first link.
I think it's maybe acceptable...but it's really awkward.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, retrogradedwithwind.  
And what about 80 a) and b)? Do they sound wrong to you?


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

to me it's undoubtably wrong to say like 80a and 80b

but 80c is, I mean, maybe acceptable but awkward.
For me it's acceptable.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you. 
So, in Chinese only the direct object can become the subject of a passive sentence (with verbs like "give").


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

I don't know how to explain this to you because it seems that you have not up to now mastered good Chinese.
If you means the verbs like "give"-- 给、赠、送、发 etc. all can be rendered as "give"-- that is not right.
书（被）给人了。
书赠/送/发出去了。
the above are correct.

小红被（小明）给了书。 awkward
小红被（小明）赠/送了书。 right.

You see, there is not a simple conclusion here.


----------



## Nino83

retrogradedwithwind said:


> 小红被（小明）赠/*送*了书。 right.


I'm a bit confused, because in the second paper it is said that this sentence is wrong.
*Lisi bei Zhangsan *song*-gei-le yige bao
Lisi bei-PASS Zhangsan send-give-Asp a CL bag
‘Lisi was sent to a bag by Zhangsan.’ 

Is there any difference between your sentence and this one? 

(Excuse me if the question seems banal, but I don't have a good knowledge of Chinese grammar).


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

Sorry It's my fault

小红被给了书 awkward 
小红被赠/送了书 right 
小红被小明赠/送了书 awkward 

I say they are awkward, which means I think they are not excellent Chinese sentences but maybe acceptable, and even sometimes these sentences have a possibility to be uttered by native speakers. So I don't think they are wrong, but really not good. 

there are always some sentences, in all languages, that are both right and wrong. those sentences may be spoken by some native speakers as well as refused by other native speakers. 
I think the above two awkward sentences belong to that kind.

Just like the above English sentences written by me, they must be awkward in your eyes. but that kind of English sentences are understandable and probably written by a shabby native English speaker?

since your Chinese is not that good just like my English, it is unproductive to study such questions, which should be discussed by native speakers and senior Chinese learners.

just my two cents.


----------



## Nino83

retrogradedwithwind said:


> there are always some sentences, in all languages, that are both right and wrong. those sentences may be spoken by some native speakers as well as refused by other native speakers.


But this is important and interesting. 
For example, in some British dialects (northeast of England) they say "she gave it me" and the passive is "it was given me (by her)" while in American English and other British dialects (included Standard British English) the correct sentences are "she gave me it" and "I was given it (by her)". In Swedish and Norwegian the two passive sentences are possible, in German and in the Romance languages only the first passive sentence is allowed, and so on.  
For example, a difference between Cantonese and Mandarin is that in Cantonese the "agent" of the passive sentence is always expressed. 
These are interesting topics, in my humble opinion. 


retrogradedwithwind said:


> 小红被赠/送了书 right


In "Chinese: an essential grammar" there are some sentences with _bèi + verb_ (without the agent) with one "object" (or passive subject). 
For example: 
他们*被*关在外头了 
Tāmen *bèi* guān zài wàitou le 
They were shut outside  

I didn't know it was also possible with double objects.  

Thank you


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

他被人送了礼  is grammatically the same as 小红被小明给了书, but the former is widely accepted whereas the latter is awkward to most people.
I don't know why.

So if someone says 小红被小明给了书 is 100％ wrong, I will disagree on it. But certainly awkward. 

书被给了。awkward 
书给了。right 
书被给了出去。right 
书给了出去。right 
书给了你。right 
书被给了你。less awkward 
书送了。more awkward 
书送了出去。right 
书被送了。right but a little awkward 
书被送了出去。right 
书被送了你。awkward 
书送了你。right 
......

你被给了书。awkward 
你被送了书。right 
你被小明给了书。 more awkward 
你被小明送了书。less awkward 
你被人送了礼。right 
......

My incentive about their correctness.

[Edit:] I forgot saying that when I said "accepted by some and refused by others" I referred to standard Chinese, not dialects. 
Just like “different than”?

It's a little late I will discuss with you tomorrow.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you very much for the examples.


----------



## Skatinginbc

The ongoing evolution of bei-constructions is rather speedy and fluid.  It is often not as dichotomous (i.e., ill-formness vs. well-formness) as some students of Chinese linguistics have depicted.  To simplify the subject matter, they usually choose not to discuss variations, which unfortunately exist and are ever-evolving.

Re: Standard Chinese
I have learned from other threads that my "Standard Chinese" regarding the use of bei-constructions is different from the "Standard Chinese" of many other posters.  For instance, "Nà běn shū bèi John sòng gěi Mary le" is not good by my standards although it would not surprise me if some people think otherwise.  Anyway, I would have "Nà běn shū John sòng gěi Mary le" instead, without the use of "bèi".


----------



## brofeelgood

John给了Mary一本书. 
一本书Mary被John给. 
Mary一本书被John给. 

It's possibly arguable that the following are grammatical, but they are not idiomatic and definitely not something you'll hear from a native speaker.
Mary被John给了一本书. 
一本书被John给了Mary. 

Another valid expression that's frequently heard is *John把书给了Mary*.



Nino83 said:


> I found that in Chinese, with "give" verbs, only the DO can be passivized, while with "get" verbs (like "steal"), only the IO can be passivized.



Do these count?

皇上赐了小安子死罪
Passive: 小安子被皇上赐了死罪 (was given the death penalty)

我扇了他一记耳光
Passive: 他被我扇了一记耳光 (was given a slap)

小偷偷走了我的钱包
Passive: 我被小偷偷走了钱包 (I was thieved...)
Passive: 我的钱包被小偷偷走了 (My wallet was stolen...)


----------



## Nino83

brofeelgood said:


> 小偷偷走了我的钱包
> Passive: 我被小偷偷走了钱包 (I was thieved...)
> Passive: 我的钱包被小偷偷走了 (My wallet was stolen...)


No, these are normal, because these are of the get-type ("they stole something *from* you", different from "they gave something *to* you/made something *for* you").

In this case the DO cannot become the subject of the passive sentence, according to the second paper. 

5) a). Xiaotou tou-le wo qianbao.
a thief steal-Asp me wallet
‘A thief stole me of my wallet.’
b). Wo bei xiaotou tou-le qianbao.
I bei-PASS a thief steal-Asp wallet
‘I was stolen wallet by a thief. ’
c). **Qianbao bei xiaotou tou-le wo. *
Wallet bei-PASS a thief steal-Asp me
‘Wallet was stolen me by a thief.’


----------



## Skatinginbc

Nino83 said:


> In this case the DO cannot become the subject of the passive sentence, according to the second paper.


I disagree.  The passive voice for "Xiaotou tou-le wo qianbao" (小偷偷了我钱包) is in fact "Wo qianbao bei Xiaotou tou-le" (我钱包被小偷偷了) with 我 (me, the IO) being the topic and 钱包 (wallet, the DO) being the subject.  It has been argued that an indirect object is actually a prepositional phrase in which the preposition (e.g, to, for, of, from) is not stated but understood.  The topicalized indirect object wo "me" behaves somewhat like the topicalized prepositional phrase whose preposition is omitted (e.g., (在)图书馆里, 你可以免费阅读杂志).

Likewise,
Active voice: 犯罪集团骗走了他一大笔钱
IO as the subject: 他被犯罪集团骗走了一大笔钱
DO as the subject: 他一大笔钱被犯罪集团骗走了


----------



## brofeelgood

Nino83 said:


> No, these are normal, because these are of the get-type ("they stole something *from* you", different from "they gave something *to* you/made something *for* you").
> 
> In this case the DO cannot become the subject of the passive sentence, according to the second paper.



The two of us being native speakers of different languages (IT/EN/ZH), there might be a difference in what you and I perceive as the subject, direct object and indirect object in a given expression.

So let's sort that out first.

In the sentence (active voice) 小偷偷了我的钱包 *A thief stole my wallet (from me)*, what do you consider to be the subject, direct object and indirect object?


----------



## Nino83

brofeelgood said:


> The two of us being native speakers of different languages (IT/EN/ZH), there might be a difference in what you and I perceive as the subject, direct object and indirect object in a given expression.


First of all, I would say that the authors of the second paper, Changyin Zhou and Wenjing Su, are Chinese.  


brofeelgood said:


> In the sentence (active voice) 小偷偷了我的钱包 *A thief stole my wallet (from me)*, what do you consider to be the subject, direct object and indirect object


"The wallet" DO, I/me IO, as stated by the authors of the paper.  
If you think these terms are not adequate for Chinese language, we can use more neutral terms, like patient and recipient.


----------



## Mamanunique

“甲被乙给了or 送了” is weird.It will be “甲从乙那里得到了那本书” if you have to keep the order. 
 “甲被乙赠与or 授予”are acceptable. For example, 这个学期他被学校授予“优秀学生”称号。


----------



## Skatinginbc

brofeelgood said:


> In the sentence (active voice) 小偷偷了我的钱包 *A thief stole my wallet (from me)*, what do you consider to be the subject, direct object and indirect object?


What brofeelgood has pointed out is the structural ambiguity concerning the sentence 小偷偷了我钱包.  It can be analyzed as:
(1) 小偷偷了我钱包: 我钱包, if seen as a short form of 我的钱包, is actually a single noun phrase serving as the direct object.  There is NO indirect object in that sentence, and therefore the conclusion of that research article is not properly supported.
(2) 小偷偷了我钱包: 我 is treated as the indirect object and 钱包 as the direct object.  My argument in #18 was: If you treat 我钱包  as two separate noun phrases, then you should also treat them likewise in 我钱包被小偷偷了.  Thus the DO (i.e., 钱包 "wallet") can actually serve as the subject, and therefore the conclusion of that research article is wrong.
My point: Either analysis does not support the conclusion of that article.


----------



## janpol

a thief : subject
my wallet : direct object
from me : second object (in French "Complément d'Objet Second")
the COS says that I give (or take ) something *to somebody* :
I give an apple to my brother.
an apple : direct object
to my brother : second object (COS)
the sentence is not correct without one of these two objects :
I give to my brother" is not correct
I give an apple " is not correct


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

brofeelgood said:


> 皇上赐了小安子死罪
> Passive: 小安子被皇上赐了死罪 (was given the death penalty)
> 
> 我扇了他一记耳光
> Passive: 他被我扇了一记耳光 (was given a slap)
> 
> 小偷偷走了我的钱包
> Passive: 我被小偷偷走了钱包 (I was thieved...)
> Passive: 我的钱包被小偷偷走了 (My wallet was stolen...)


 All guys, what do you think of the following two sentences?  acceptable?

死罪被皇上赐给了小安子。
一记耳光被他扇向了我。


----------



## Skatinginbc

小偷偷了錢包  錢包被小偷偷了 Is that an indication that 我 should not be treated as the indirect object in 小偷偷了我錢包 because 我 is not an obligatory part in that sentence??(According to janpol#23, both objects are required in that kind of structure)


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

I don't think so skating.
Think about this:
给我钱  
给钱


----------



## Skatinginbc

janpol said:


> the sentence is not correct without one of these two objects


This apprently does not hold true in Chinese. See #26: 給錢，給我錢。


----------



## Mamanunique

retrogradedwithwind said:


> All guys, what do you think of the following two sentences?  acceptable?
> 
> 死罪被皇上赐给了小安子。
> 一记耳光被他扇向了我。


需要对这个死罪和这一记耳光作点说明，不然强调这个死罪和耳光显得莫名其妙。比如：开国以来第一个死罪被皇上赐给了小安子。


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

Mamanunique said:


> 开国以来第一个死罪被皇上赐给了小安子


yeah, it's very natural


----------



## Nino83

Mamanunique said:


> 需要对这个死罪和这一记耳光作点说明，不然强调这个死罪和耳光显得莫名其妙。比如：开国以来第一个死罪被皇上赐给了小安子。


Thank you for writing in Chinese only.


----------



## brofeelgood

Nino83 said:


> First of all, I would say that the authors of the second paper, Changyin Zhou and Wenjing Su, are Chinese.
> "The wallet" DO, I/me IO, as stated by the authors of the paper.
> If you think these terms are not adequate for Chinese language, we can use more neutral terms, like patient and recipient.



The use of DO / IO is fine, these are terms I'm familiar with. And thanks for your confirmation. We share the same understanding of what those terms mean.



Nino83 said:


> while with "get" verbs *(like "steal"), only the IO can be passivized.*



I take issue with the claim because it was made (by the authors) based solely on the following:
a). Xiaotou tou-le wo qianbao. 
b). Wo bei xiaotou tou-le qianbao. 
c). *Qianbao bei xiaotou tou-le wo. 

Why, of course (c) is wrong. It doesn't even work that way in English, does it? Forcefully adding a redundant 我 to the end of the sentence and hence turning it into gibberish is hardly a valid supporting argument.

钱包被小偷偷了*我*. - The wallet was stolen by the thief *me*.

I was only citing an example that negates the claim. I don't want to rehash what's already been said. Please refer to Skater's nicely-done breakdown of the expression into its individual elements in post #22. To me, it clearly shows a DO can be converted into the Subject in a "passivized" expression.



Nino83 said:


> Thank you for writing in Chinese only.



Having one of those days huh... 

Edit: The side-discussion in Mandarin revolves around the other example.

皇上(S)赐了小安子(IO)死罪(DO) = The emperor issued the death sentence for 小安子 (fictitious name of a eunuch)
小安子(IO)被皇上赐了死罪 = 小安子 was given the death sentence by the emperor.
开国以来第一个死罪(DO)被皇上赐给了小安子。= The first death sentence since the founding of the country was issued by the emperor for 小安子.

Again, here are examples that show the construction of grammatical expressions in both types of passive voice is possible. And this is directly contradicting the other claim that _with "give" verbs, only the DO can be passivized._


----------



## Skatinginbc

Nino83 said:


> with "give" verbs, only the DO can be passivized


皇上(subject "The emperor")赐了(VP "gave")小安子(IO "personal name, a proper noun")毒酒(DO, "poisoned wine") 
毒酒(DO)被皇上赐了小安子 
小安子(IO)被皇上赐了毒酒  ==> a contradiction to the claim that only the DO can be passivized. 


Nino83 said:


> with "get" verbs (like "steal"), only the IO can be passivized.


他(subject "He")抢了(VP "robbed")我(IO "me")老婆(DO "wife")
我(IO as the topic)老婆(DO as the subject)被他抢了 (as in 我老婆被他抢了, 名声被他毁了) ==> a contradiction to the claim that only the IO can be passivized.   
我(IO as the subject)被他抢了老婆 (as in 我被他抢了老婆, 毁了名声)


----------



## Nino83

brofeelgood said:


> Having one of those days huh...


I was joking, I should have put some emoticon.  
I wanted to say that it was interesting to read his comment.  


brofeelgood said:


> Again, here are examples that show the construction of grammatical expressions in both types of passive voice is possible. And this is directly contradicting the other claim that _with "give" verbs, only the DO can be passivized._


After reading Feng-hsi Liu's paper, I understood that: 

those verbs that take the "prepositional" construction, i.e verb + direct object + gěi + indirect object (that are: song, gei, huan, pei, zhao, jie, zu , chuanshou, tigong, gongying, jieshao, tuijian, xu, bo, fen, shu, rang, mai, juan, xian, diu, chuan, ti, na, jia, dao, ji, chuanzhen, hui, huan, zhi, zuo, zao, xie, mai, zhan, zhua, ti, liu, i.e verbs of transfer of possession, giving up possession, transfer of knowledge, provision, referral, promise, contribution, manner of transfer, instrument of transfer, creation, obtaining) take only *direct objects* as subjects in passive "bèi" sentences, while those verbs that *don't* take the "prepositional" construction (that are: gaosu, wen, tongzhi, weituo, baogao, huida, qian, shao, zhun, daying, wei, guan, zhaodai, kuanda, gei, i.e verbs of communication, feeding, teaching) take only *indirect object* as subjects in passive "bèi" sentences.  

Do you agree, in these terms?


----------



## Skatinginbc

Nino83 said:


> the "prepositional" construction, i.e verb + direct object + gěi + indirect object...take only *direct objects* as subjects in passive "bèi" sentences


I agree that it can be taken as a rule of thumb.  Exceptions might exist, however.
Possible counter example:
他(subject "he")传递了(VP "delivered")假情报 (DO "false intelligence")给(gěi "to")总统(IO "the President") "He delivered false information to the President".
假情报 (DO "false intelligence")被他传递给总统了 "False information was given (delivered) by him to the President"
总统(IO "the President")被他传递了假情报 "The President was given (delivered) false intelligence by him" ==> The sentence seems acceptable to me although I'm not sure how other people would think.


Nino83 said:


> while those verbs that *don't* take the "prepositional" construction...take only *indirect object* as subjects in passive "bèi" sentences.


Possible counter example:
他喂了狗昨天买的人参 He fed a dog the ginseng that was bought yesterday.
昨天买的人参(DO "The ginseng bought yesterday")被他喂了狗 .  "The ginseng bought yesterday was fed by him to a dog." ==> Clearly a contradiction to the rule.
Many of the verbs given in that list pertain to the "verb + object + infinitive/gerund" structure (e.g., 我教他写字 "I teach him to write" ==> The subject of "write" is actually "him", not "I").  Consequently, I don't see those sentences as having both direct objects and indirect objects.
他教我英语 He taught me English.  他教我说英语 He taught me to speak English.
我被他教英语  我被他教说英语 
我英语被他教  (cf. 我英语被他教得怪裡怪氣的) 我说英语被他教


----------



## Nino83

Skatinginbc said:


> 总统(IO "the President")被他传递了假情报 "


Are "传" and "传递" the same verb?
What is the function of "递"?


Skatinginbc said:


> Many of the verbs given in that list pertain to the "verb + object + infinitive/gerund" structure (e.g., 我教他写字 "I teach him to write"


Which is a different structure, because in these cases the object is not a recipient but it's a benefactor.
In fact, the structure "subject + verb + gei + object + verb" (pre-verbal "gei") is allowed by other verbs that don't allow the double object construction.
Wo zai zhao difang gei mao shui = I’m looking for a place for the cat to sleep
*Wo zai zhao difang gei mao = I’m looking for a place for the cat
Wo fan -le yipian wenzhang gei ta kan = I opened an article for him to read
*Wo fan -le yipian wenzhang gei ta = I opened an article for him 


Skatinginbc said:


> 他教我英语


The example she makes with the verb "teach" is:  Lisi bei jiao fan le = Lisi was taught to the point of getting annoyed
But when the verb "jiao" is followed by "gei" it becomes a verb of "transfer of knowledge", working like the other verbs of transfer:
Laoshi jiao*gei* xuesheng xuduo zhishi
*Xuesheng bei (laoshi) jiaogei xuduo zhishi


----------



## brofeelgood

Nino83 said:


> Those verbs that take the "prepositional" construction, i.e verb + direct object + gěi + indirect object (that are: song, gei, huan, pei, zhao, jie, zu , chuanshou, tigong, gongying, jieshao, tuijian, xu, bo, fen, shu, rang, mai, juan, xian, diu, chuan, ti, na, jia, dao, ji, chuanzhen, hui, huan, zhi, zuo, zao, xie, mai, zhan, zhua, ti, liu, i.e verbs of transfer of possession, giving up possession, transfer of knowledge, provision, referral, promise, contribution, manner of transfer, instrument of transfer, creation, obtaining) take only *direct objects* as subjects in passive "bèi" sentences



We are circling back to post #2 and #15. Personally, I find the passive constructions ungainly and I would dissuade anyone from using them freely, but I would stop short of rejecting their grammaticality. It would be great if other native speakers could also pitch it, be it for or against the argument.

John送了一本书给Mary. 
(IO) 一本书被John送给了Mary. 
(DO) Mary被John送了一本书.



Nino83 said:


> Those verbs that *don't* take the "prepositional" construction (that are: gaosu, wen, tongzhi, weituo, baogao, huida, qian, shao, zhun, daying, wei, guan, zhaodai, kuanda, gei, i.e verbs of communication, feeding, teaching) take only *indirect object* as subjects in passive "bèi" sentences.



See Skater's counter example about the dog in post #33. 

他告诉了他朋友你们之间的秘密. 
你们之间的秘密被他告诉了他朋友.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Nino83 said:


> Are "传" and "传递" the same verb?
> What is the function of "递"?


传递 is a synonymous compound consisting of a pair of synonyms (传 = 递).


Nino83 said:


> Which is a different structure, because in these cases the object is not a recipient but it's a benefactor.


That was my point.


Nino83 said:


> In fact, the structure "subject + verb + gei + object + verb" (pre-verbal "gei") is allowed by other verbs that don't allow the double object construction.


How is that related to our discussion?  You don't consider that kind of structure (i.e., "subject + verb + gei + object + verb") a double object construction, do you?  Anyway, I don't.


Nino83 said:


> The example she makes with the verb "teach" is:  Lisi bei jiao fan le = Lisi was taught to the point of getting annoyed


Indeed, that is not a double object construction.


Nino83 said:


> But when the verb "jiao" is followed by "gei" it becomes a verb of "transfer of knowledge", working like the other verbs of transfer:
> Laoshi jiao*gei* xuesheng xuduo zhishi


I'm confused.  I was talking about verbs that _don't_ take the "prepositional" construction (i.e "verbs of communication, feeding 餵, teaching 教").  Adding a "gei", of course, becomes a different story and, I think, it is unrelated to what I was discussing unless you actually intended to say in #32: "While those verbs that _cannot_ (as opposed to _don't_) take the "prepositional" construction...take only indirect object as subjects in passive 'bèi'."


----------



## Nino83

Skatinginbc said:


> How is that related to our discussion? You don't consider that kind of structure (i.e., "subject + verb + gei + object + verb") a double object construction, do you? Anyway, I don't.


Feng-hsi Liu, in her papers, doesn't consider it a double object construction, while those with a post verbal "gei" are (according to her) double object constructions. 


Skatinginbc said:


> those verbs that _cannot_ (as opposed to _don't_) take the "prepositional" construction...take only indirect object as subjects in passive 'bèi'."


Yes, my fault. I intended to say "cannot". 
Those verbs that cannot take the "prepositional" construction in the active sentence, can't take the direct object as subject in passive "bèi" sentences, and viceversa. 


Skatinginbc said:


> I'm confused.


I'm confused too.
It seems that this matter is a bit caotic in Chinese, i.e it depends on the single verb. Feng-hsi Liu and other linguists are trying to systematize it but it's clear that there are no consistent rules, differently from other languages which admit only one object (English, German, Romance languages) or both objects (Norwegian, Swedish, Japanese) as subjects in passive sentences.
I think I'll give up, seeing that also Chinese linguists were not able, until today, to find consistent rules for "bèi" passive constructions. 

Thank you all


----------



## Skatinginbc

Nino83 said:


> Yes, my fault. I intended to say "cannot".


In that case, my counter example (i.e., 昨天买的人参被他餵了狗 "The ginseng bought yesterday was fed by him to a dog") does not count because 餵 "feed" can also be followed by a gei 给 (i.e., 餵给 "feed to").  I think Feng-hsi Liu's claims can be taken as rules of thumb despite the existence of possible exceptions.  Big deal!  It does not take away her credit of finding those general (not absolute) rules for bei-constructions.


----------



## brofeelgood

And this is just one of the forms of passive voice in Chinese.... 

Unfortunately, when it comes to languages, just about the only thing that's certain is that not all rules are unequivocal. If you ask me, attempting to rationalise a language (any language) into a sum of distinct parts each governed by clear-cut rules is an impossible task. That's precisely why controversies exist and why we have such interesting discussions on which we can fritter away our time... and maybe learn a thing or two in the process.


----------



## Skatinginbc

And the issue in discussion is not a simple matter of what the verb is.  It is complicated by the nature of the object.  For example, I would accept a DO with negativity like 假情报 in 总统被他传递了假情报 but would reject a positive DO like 正確情报 in *总统被他传递了正確情报*.  Also, a definite noun phrase can be more easily accepted in passivization than an indefinite one, e.g., 开国以来第一个死罪被皇上赐给了小安子 vs. *死罪被皇上赐给了小安子*.


----------



## Nino83

Skatinginbc said:


> I think Feng-hsi Liu's claims can be taken as rules of thumb despite the existence of possible exceptions.


Thank you, not it's more clear this matter. 


Skatinginbc said:


> Also, a definite noun phrase can be more easily accepted in passivization


Yes, this is another "rule" said in the paper of Changyin Zhou and Wenjing Su (the second one).  


> However, in Chinese Give-type DOCs, passivization of the IOs is unacceptable, and that of the DOs is acceptable *only when the DOs are definite*


----------



## janpol

I think that, in grammar, it's necessary to give a name for every word and every function :
active voice : Peter (subject) called (verb) Tim (DO)
passive voice : Tim (subject) was called (verb) by (preposition) Peter (agent)
The agent is the word which makes the action in a passive sentence and which becomes the subject in the active sentence


----------



## Nino83

janpol said:


> I think that, in grammar, it's necessary to give a name for every word and every function


The title of the thread was changed and shortened by moderators.  
The question is about ditransitive verbs and if direct and indirect objects of the active sentence can be the subject of the passive sentence.  
The answer was "it depends" (on the type of verb, give-type vs. get-type, and if the give-type verb can take the "prepositional" construction "verb + direct object + gei + indirect object" (post-verbal "gei") in the active sentence, with some exception).


----------



## Skatinginbc

Nino83 said:


> *only when the DOs are definite*


What may confuse learners of Chinese is that definiteness is sometimes implied without an overt morphological or syntactic marker.  For example, 毒酒被皇上赐给了小安子 actually has a definite subject (DO) 毒酒 "poisoned wine", which refers to "that poisoned wine" or "the poisoned wine that we talked about previously" in this context.


----------



## Skatinginbc

brofeelgood said:


> 他告诉了他朋友你们之间的秘密.
> 你们之间的秘密被他告诉了他朋友.


That is a very good counter example, Bro!  Having read it, I start to question the practical value of that quoted rule (see #35).


----------

