English or not?
chance
a. The parents took little care of their babies.
b. Their babies were taken little care of by their parents.
c. Little care was taken of their babies by the parents.
'b', 'c' are supposedly the passive forms derived from 'a'.
Is the 'b' English?
Tia
CK
Richard Chambers
A speaker of English would be able to understand all three. However, item
(b) is awkward and should not be used for that reason. The problem is caused
by the double preposition, "... of by ...". The "of" belongs to the
preceding word, "care", while the "by" belongs to the next two words, "their
parents". This gives the reader an unnecessary logical jolt, and makes the
sentence more complicated than it need be. Simplicity, as far as possible,
is always best in English, as (probably) in most other languages.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
I don't have too many problems with (b): it's certainly English, though
(a) is much better. I can't imagine a native speaker using (c), which
is much worse than (b).
--
athel
Guy Barry
"chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message
news:7ilta1F...@mid.individual.net...
Interesting question. Certainly if 'a' were "the parents took care of their
babies" I'd have no hesitation in forming the passive after 'b' rather than
'c'. However once "care" is qualified I think I prefer 'c' to 'b'. I think
that's because "take care of" is a set phrase which acts as though it were a
single transitive verb, whereas I'd tend to see "take little care of" as a
verb+object+preposition.
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
> > a. The parents took little care of their babies.
> > b. Their babies were taken little care of by their parents.
> > c. Little care was taken of their babies by the parents.
Dick Chambers writes:
> A speaker of English would be able to understand all three. However, item
> (b) is awkward and should not be used for that reason. The problem is caused
> by the double preposition, "... of by ...". The "of" belongs to the
> preceding word, "care", while the "by" belongs to the next two words,
> "their parents". ...
I disagree: the wording "taken care of by their parents" is perfectly
normal. It's only the "little" that's problematic.
--
Mark Brader "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you
Toronto do say can and will be misquoted and used against
m...@vex.net you in a future post." -- Tanja Cooper, misquoted
Mark Brader
>> a. The parents took little care of their babies.
>> b. Their babies were taken little care of by their parents.
>> c. Little care was taken of their babies by the parents.
Guy Barry writes:
> Interesting question. Certainly if 'a' were "the parents took care of their
> babies" I'd have no hesitation in forming the passive after 'b' rather than
> 'c'.
In other words, considering these forms:
a2. The parents took care of their babies.
b2. Their babies were taken care of by their parents.
c2. Care was taken of their babies by the parents.
Guy says b2 is better than c2. I agree.
> However once "care" is qualified I think I prefer 'c' to 'b'.
I agree again. Also consider the negative:
a3. The parents took no care of their babies.
b3. Their babies were taken no care of by their parents.
c3. No care was taken of their babies by the parents.
I'd call b3 impossible and c3 fairly natural, although the active
version a3 is better yet.
In each of these examples the modifier has had the form of an adjective
modifying "care". Let's see what happens if we instead use an adverb
modifying "take". First the negative:
a4. The parents did not take care of their babies.
b4. Their babies were not taken care of by their parents.
c4. Care was not taken of their babies by the parents.
Now b4 is natural and c4 looks peculiar.
And now with the adverb for "little", which is "little":
a5. The parents little took care of their babies.
b5. Their babies were little taken care of by their parents.
c5. Care was little taken of their babies by the parents.
Frankly, I don't care for any of these; adverbial "little" sounds rather
old-fashioned or literary. But b5 is clearly better than c5. And in
fact, when I first saw the original posting, my first instinct was that
b had the words in the wrong order and b5 was the proper correction.
Guy suggested:
> I think that's because "take care of" is a set phrase which acts as
> though it were a single transitive verb, whereas I'd tend to see
> "take little care of" as a verb+object+preposition.
Clearly there is some difference in how you can use the two phrases,
but I don't think that expresses it. Look what happens if you change
"little" in the original sentences to "good", a different adjective:
a6. The parents took good care of their babies.
b6. Their babies were taken good care of by their parents.
c6. Good care was taken of their babies by the parents.
Now I think b6 and c6 *both* work. But maybe "take good care of" is
*also* a set phrase. Augh. This is weird. I can't figure out what
the rules are. Is John Lawler around, by any chance?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net
"I am good at fooling myself into believing that what I wrote
is what I meant. I am also good at fooling myself into believing
that what I meant is what I should have meant." --Kent Beck
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mark Brader
>> a. The parents took little care of their babies.
>> b. Their babies were taken little care of by their parents.
>> c. Little care was taken of their babies by the parents.
> I can't imagine a native speaker using (c), which is much worse than (b).
Funny, *I* can't imagine a native speaker using (b), which is much worse
than (c).
--
Mark Brader "'A matter of opinion'[?] I have to say you are
Toronto right. There['s] your opinion, which is wrong,
m...@vex.net and mine, which is right." -- Gene Ward Smith
mm
wrote:
>
>a. The parents took little care of their babies.
>
>b. Their babies were taken little care of by their parents.
>
>c. Little care was taken of their babies by the parents.
>
For some reason, you removed a 'the' from b and replaced it with a
'their'. I don't like that. And you didn't do it to the other two.
B is not as good. It's almost confusing with two "their"s in it. It
might even be referring to the parents' parents.\
"The babies were not given enough care by their parents." Something
like that is straight-forward, and passive if you insist on passive.
"The parents gave little care to their babies."
This is the seventeenth time I've read about these bad parents. Can't
we find them and take their babies from them!
>'b', 'c' are supposedly the passive forms derived from 'a'.
>
>Is the 'b' English?
>
>
>
>Tia
>
>CK
>
>
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which
area they are asking questions. I have lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 10 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
Eric Walker
The passive form is a method for switching the focus of a sentence from
the doer to the done:
George Roebling designed the Brooklyn Bridge: focus on Roebling.
The Brooklyn Bridge was designed by George Roebling: focus on the
bridge he designed.
In--
The parents took little care of their babies.
--the focus is on the parents; to switch it to the thing done--which
needs to be recognized as the caring--one will end up with form c:
Little care of their babies was taken by the parents.
That is awkward, because is intended to remain as close to the original
casting as possible, even though the adjectival phrase "of their babies"
doesn't fit nicely anywhere in this form. More felicitous castings are
possible.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Guy Barry
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:a5qcc51kced0n9fo4...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:52:21 +0900, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >a. The parents took little care of their babies.
> >
> >b. Their babies were taken little care of by their parents.
> >
> >c. Little care was taken of their babies by the parents.
> >
> For some reason, you removed a 'the' from b and replaced it with a
> 'their'. I don't like that. And you didn't do it to the other two.
I assumed the "their" in (b) was a typo. Substitute "the" for "their" if
you like - it's irrelevant to the main question about how to form the
passive.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
"Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
news:M62dnWa8ILOcxFvX...@vex.net...
[snip - agree with everything up to this point]
> And now with the adverb for "little", which is "little":
>
> a5. The parents little took care of their babies.
> b5. Their babies were little taken care of by their parents.
> c5. Care was little taken of their babies by the parents.
>
> Frankly, I don't care for any of these; adverbial "little" sounds rather
> old-fashioned or literary.
Try "seldom" or "rarely" then. I think "their babies were seldom taken care
of..." sounds better than "care was seldom taken of their babies...". I
don't think insertion of an adverb has any bearing on acceptability in
itself.
> Guy suggested:
> > I think that's because "take care of" is a set phrase which acts as
> > though it were a single transitive verb, whereas I'd tend to see
> > "take little care of" as a verb+object+preposition.
>
> Clearly there is some difference in how you can use the two phrases,
> but I don't think that expresses it. Look what happens if you change
> "little" in the original sentences to "good", a different adjective:
>
> a6. The parents took good care of their babies.
> b6. Their babies were taken good care of by their parents.
> c6. Good care was taken of their babies by the parents.
>
> Now I think b6 and c6 *both* work. But maybe "take good care of" is
> *also* a set phrase. Augh. This is weird. I can't figure out what
> the rules are. Is John Lawler around, by any chance?
That's a good point. Try it with some other adjectives:
"The parents took due care of their babies."
"The parents took proper care of their babies."
"The parents took dutiful care of their babies."
"Taken due care of" sounds OK, but "taken proper care of" is borderline and
"taken dutiful care of" is no good at all. Maybe the length of the
adjective has something to do with it.
I agree, it's hard to work out a pattern. Why does "taken great care of"
sound all right but not "taken much care of"?
Are there many similar idioms to "take care of"? Can you do the same with
"take note of" or "take heed of"?
--
Guy Barry
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> We were asked about:
>>> a. The parents took little care of their babies.
>>> b. Their babies were taken little care of by their parents.
>>> c. Little care was taken of their babies by the parents.
>
> Athel Cornish-Bowden writes:
>> I can't imagine a native speaker using (c), which is much worse than (b).
>
> Funny, *I* can't imagine a native speaker using (b), which is much worse
> than (c).
Now that I read them again I read them as you do. Maybe I had them the
wrong way round. Anyway, I think we can agree that (a) is much more
likely than either (b) or (c).
--
athel
Ian Jackson
<em...@owlcroft.com> writes
This is because, until the parents are mentioned, you don't yet know
whom "their" refers.
"Little care of the babies was taken by their parents".
--
Ian
mm
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:a5qcc51kced0n9fo4...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:52:21 +0900, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >a. The parents took little care of their babies.
>> >
>> >b. Their babies were taken little care of by their parents.
>> >
>> >c. Little care was taken of their babies by the parents.
>> >
>> For some reason, you removed a 'the' from b and replaced it with a
>> 'their'. I don't like that. And you didn't do it to the other two.
>
>I assumed the "their" in (b) was a typo.
It might be.
> Substitute "the" for "their" if
>you like - it's irrelevant to the main question about how to form the
>passive.
He never said that was the main question, or the question.