[untwittered]

All right, gather 'round, all you #AmWriting clowns! Since she just got ANOTHER email with a writer/editor type misidentifying it, today Aunt Bloody Rose is gonna learn your ass what the hell the passive voice ACTUALLY IS!

There is a lot of confusion. Don't worry; it's not your fault! It's all the fault of grammar lunatics Strunk & White and their stupid-ass Elements of Style, in which they say "avoid passive voice" and then give you a bunch of "examples," 75% of which do not contain passive voice

I think it stems from the connotations of "active" and "passive." Passive is boring, right? Active is, well, dynamic! Avoid boring sentences! That's good advice!

BUT! Just because it's boring, doesn't mean a sentence is in passive voice. "Passive voice" refers very specifically to something in linguistics!

Put simply, * passive voice is when you turn the patient of a transitive verb into the subject of a sentence. *

So, to contrast:
"Weasels ripped my flesh" is active voice. The weasels are the agents (the verb-ers), AND they're the subjects. "My flesh" is the patient (the verb-ee).
"My flesh was ripped by weasels" is passive. "My flesh" is still the patient, but now it's the subject

Note that this can be a USEFUL construction. Not just because changing the subject changes the focus, but because you can actually drop the agent entirely from a passive construction. ("Doctor! Help! My flesh was ripped!" You don't need to explain who did the ripping.)

If you don't know who did the action, it's useful, too. "Nurse! Help me out here. This extremely manly guy's flesh was ripped." Doctor doesn't know by what, but it doesn't matter, except insofar as he'd like a specimen to test for rabies probably

Now, as noted above, you can re-add the agent in with a "by" phrase. But it is optional. Often in this case, you're changing topicalization.
In English, the topic is usually the subject of a sentence. Then you comment on the topic with the "predicate."

"Weasels ripped my flesh" - the topic is weasels. You're commenting on their action.
"My flesh was ripped by weasels" - the topic is your flesh. You're commenting on the horrible ordeal it went through.

So! That's pretty much it. That's the passive voice. BUT I'M NOT DONE, DANGIT

Obviously, this is a lot simpler than people make it out to be. But as I mentioned, it's easily confused with other constructions. I think this is partly to do with English using "to be" (or sometimes "to get") in part of the passive construction

The English copula ("to be," "is," "am," "are," "was," "were," "been," etc.) is an incredibly busy critter. I can't possibly encapsulate it all. Look at this behemoth on Wiktionary:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/be

But there are a couple of things to note. First, "being" is not generally considered particularly dynamic, so people think of it as "passive." ("The weasels were hungry" doesn't really have the weasels DOING much. "I am a manly guy" likewise isn't very DO-y.)

That, plus the copula's use in other verb constructions ("the weasels WERE ripping my flesh" "there sure WERE a lot of weasels" "going into the weasel pit WAS like diving into a meat grinder") seems to be what confuses people into thinking they're passive voice

And note that ALL of these constructions are useful, depending on what you want to say and what part of the action you feel is important to focus on!

But--and in this I will agree with editors--it's also possible that there's a more dynamic way to say something. Just because a sentence has no passive constructions doesn't mean it might not be boring!

But please, PLEASE, when you comment on a sentence, make sure you're not misidentifying WHY it's a problem. "Passive voice" is not shorthand for "limp and boring." It's a specific thing! And useful!

Okay, That is my thread. I will now open the floor for questions. The first answer is: no, "weasel" does NOT look like a word anymore. Thanks for asking!

(Addendum: If you want to see a hilarious grammar fight, Google "fifty years of stupid grammar advice." Geoff K. Pullum wrote an anti-tribute to Strunk&White on their 50th anniversary, and BOY the grammar snob were mad. SO MANY REBUTTALS)

I just realized that I never explained what a transitive verb IS! Put simply, it's a verb with at least two participants: an agent (do-ER; the one acting) and a patient (do-EE; the one acted upon)

> Put simply, * passive voice is when you turn the patient of a transitive verb into the subject of a sentence. *

In "Aliens attacked New York," aliens are the agent and New York is the patient.
Contrast with intransitive verbs, which only have one participant. "Mario jumps," for example, only needs Mario doing a thing.
It can get more complex, of course, but that's the basics!

Also fun: verbs can overlap depending on context. You can make "eat" work either way. "Hannibal is eating" (intransitive) versus "Hannibal is eating PEOPLE OH NO"(transitive)

But you can only passivize the transitive sentence ("People are being eaten [by Hannibal], oh no!"). The intransitive has no patient, so there's no way to turn the nonexistent patient into a subject, and we remain blissfully ignorant of Hannibal's diet

ANOTHER CLARIFICATION: Neither of these sample sentences is passive voice

> But there are a couple of things to note. First, "being" is not generally considered particularly dynamic, so people think of it as "passive." ("The weasels were hungry" doesn't really have the weasels DOING much. "I am a manly guy" likewise isn't very DO-y.)

[/untwittered]