how frequent is this use?

Hello

The passive counterpart of the sentence " He made us laugh" is "we were made laugh"

I find the passivisation a bit stiff, and rather twisted and turned.

How frequent is this use of the passive sentence above?

Thanks in advance.

I can't think of any situation in which you would use that form.

I think the passive would really be:

"We were made to laugh [by him]."

-or-

"We were made [by him] to laugh."

We were made TO laugh would be the correct passive.

Passive sentences are used all the time, but that particular one would be rare; if we were bent on using the passive voice, we would probably be more likely to say "We were amused by him" or "We were entertained by him" rather than "made to laugh", which does sound awkward.

Dear uriel,
I remember someone telling me that in the phrase 'made to laugh' the 'tO' must not be used and 'laugh' should be a bare infinitive .

for example -

The passive counterpart of "She made him stand on the chair" will be

'He was made stand on the chair' since stand in the active sentence is a bare infinitive.

Is it correct?

Dear Uriel,

If you are there, could you please answer my question about the bare infinitive. I really like your answers.

At the same time I thank all the other people who have taken the trouble to answer my questions.

thank you.

bubu ,

Bare infinitives are used after "make" in the active, "to" appears in the passive.
No one will make me marry him.
Poor thing was made to marry that hateful old man.
He was made to stand on the chair.

Ah. I had never heard the term "bare infinitive" before!

You do need "to" in your sentences, and Humble gives a pretty good explanation as to why. (I actually had never thought about it before!)

If it's "made you" or "make her" or "makes him" or "will make them" (an active form of the verb "to make"), then there's no "to" in the following verb. Reminds me suddenly of the mnemonic for remembering all the names of the Great Lakes in order from west to east: "She Made Harry Eat Onions" (Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, Ontario). Sorry, I digress!

But if you see the passive form "was made" or "is made" or "will be made", there will always be a "to" in the next verb. In fact, I usually think of the "to" as belonging to the whole phrase -- "is made to" -- although I imagine that's not grammatically correct. But it's so automatic that I don't even remember that it's really the infinitive version of the NEXT verb. I think it's because when we think of verbs in English, we usually leave off the "to" anyway -- I just think of the verb as "make". Ah, the perils of not having a built-in infinitive form like ser or escuchar ... the "to" becomes just as optional in our minds as auxiliary verbs like "have" or "would" or "shall" -- just add-on words that modify the tense. I remember it really being hard to conceptualize that "to" was a necessary part of the infinitive when it was pounded into me at school as a kid -- just didn't seem necessary. "Make" seemed fine by itself.

For whatever reason, if you change the verb from "make" to "force", the bare infinitive issue goes away completely -- you won't use it at all:

No one will force me to marry him.
Poor thing was forced to marry that hateful old man.
He was forced to stand on the chair.



By the way, losing the "to" after "make" must be a fairly recent invention, because it is still retained in the lord's prayer (although it does sound very archaic):

"He maketh me to lie down in green pastures"

The normal modern version of this sentiment would be "He makes me lie down in green pastures".

Just some trivia -- hope you don't mind!

"To" is a preposition, a part of speech usually used to connect different parts of speech. Since "made" and "laugh" are not different parts of speech, there is no need for a preposition. Note that the passive voice changes the verb to the past participle, which is a cross between a verb and an adjective. For instance, in Uriel's example, "forced" describes the state in which the person is, and thus is functioning as an adjective. Compare this to other adjectives: "Poor thing was reluctant to marry that hateful old man." "Poor thing was eager to marry that hateful old man."

Sometimes, a verb is used as a noun. For instance, in the sentence "I like to swim", "swim" is being used as a noun, so once again there's a preposition.

Uriel,

Your explanation was terrific. You combined commentary on language usage with a peek inside the native speaker's head.

As for pertinent trivia, they're very welcome. Not only the sake of the entertainment they provide. Trivia are often a veritable form of "cultural literacy", which is almost as important as the mere linguistic literacy for the learner.

With every good wish,

Achab

Typo alert:

I forgot a word above... "Not only the sake of" should have been "Not only for the sake of".

By the way, talking about verbs and the native speaker's mind:

There's a popular linguistics book by Steven Pinker that's all about how regular and irregular verbs are mentally processed.

A brief essay he authored by the same title and content can be read here: http://www.psichi.org/pdf/pinker.pdf

With iterated good wishes,

Achab

Another Guest:
<To" is a preposition, a part of speech usually used to connect different parts of speech. Since "made" and "laugh" are not different parts of speech, there is no need for a preposition. Sometimes, a verb is used as a noun. For instance, in the sentence "I like to swim", "swim" is being used as a noun, so once again there's a preposition.… >
That’s a new word in grammar!
I like pine-apples.
“like” is a verb, “pine-apples” is a noun. According to your theory I should insert “to” – I like to pine-apples.
I’ve never thought why “to” is not used after most modal verbs – it’s interesting.
Beginners often make mistakes saying things like “I must to do it now” or “She cannot to understand”.

Achab,
Thank you for the link. Have not seen it yet.
I’ve read an article by Pinker a couple of years ago. He’s very smart, but seemed arrogant to me.

I hope you don’t mind a little correction:
“Not only” at the beginning of a sentence requires an inverted word order.
<Not only entertainment _do_ they seek.
Not only is she poorly educated, but she’s too impulsive to be a politician.>

Humble,

I agree with you about a sentence like "Not only is she poorly educated, but she’s too impulsive to be a politician".

The inversion is certainly needed there. "Not only she's poorly educated, but she’s too impulsive to be a politician" doesn't sound correct.

I'm not sure, though, an inverted word order is right for the sentence I actually used. Not in that context.

Here's the disputed passage:

"As for pertinent trivia, they're very welcome. Not only for the sake of the entertainment they provide. Trivia are often a veritable form of "cultural literacy", which is almost as important as the mere linguistic literacy for the learner."

Would you really change the second sentence into "Not only the sake of the entertainment do they provide"? I wouldn't.

I may agree if that sentence was placed in a different context. For instance:

"Not only for the sake of the entertainment do they provide us with so many comedies, but also as a means of propaganda. Didn't you notice the way they're chocked-full of jabs at their political enemies?"

What do you think?

Could some native speaker give their insight?

Entelechy, enturbulation, entertainment,

Achab

Uriel, excellent explanation and thank you for the mnemonic! As a map enthusiast I have tried to memorize the Great Lakes and since I don't think about them very often, I usually find I can't recall which is which. So now I have a method thanks to you.

As an aside, I agree with the poster above... your posts are always insightful. Thanks for participating here.

Hey, it's a cheap thrill -- I get to feel smart for um, knowing my own language! And hell, I don't even know that much about HOW it works -- our fine learners start throwing around words like "preterite" and "bare infinitive" and I have only the vaguest idea what they are talking about -- I think I was in single digits the last time I was actually made to formally parse a sentence on the blackboard!

But if you like my chitchat, I'm happy to oblige. ;)

<<"Not only for the sake of the entertainment do they provide us with so many comedies, but also as a means of propaganda. Didn't you notice the way they're chocked-full of jabs at their political enemies?" >>

Here would be my take on this sentence, as a native speaker:

"Not only for the sake of entertainment do they provide us with so many comedies, but also as a means of propaganda. Haven't you noticed the way they're chock-full of jabs at their political enemies?"

The differences between my sentence and yours are that I eliminated the "the" before entertainment, switched "didn't" to "haven't", and changed "chocked" to "chock".

That last one is the simplest to explain -- "chock" isn't a verb. It doesn't get an -ed ending. To be honest, it isn't even a real word -- you ONLY see "chock" as a part of the slang term "chock-full"; it has no other use that I know of, and never stands alone or as part of any other term. It's just an emphatic way of saying "really full" or "full to bursting". If anyone knows where it came from, that'd be an interesting read. Again, it's nothing I ever thought about before you brought it up!

"Haven't" instead of "didn't" is sort of a judgment call on my part. If you are speaking in a general, on-going way about this phenomenon, you use "have" and not "did" because there isn't a defined and limited time period. The clue to this is the verb in the PREVIOUS sentence -- "do they provide us". That gives the thought an undefined time parameter. Whatever's going on is still going on right now, according to that verb choice. If we were talking about a definite, limited time period, you would have said, "Not only for the sake of entertainment DID they provide us (yadda yadda yadda)." At that point, it would have been perfectly appropriate to follow it with, "Didn't you notice the way they're chocked-full of jabs at their political enemies?" because the whole thought took place in the past -- it's not still happening now.

This brings us to the "the" in front of entertainment. There are times when you use it, and times when you don't, and someone more versed in formal grammar will have to articulate that rule, because I can't!