ممكن حل سؤال التحويل للمجهول [الأرشيف] - بوابة الثانوية العامة المصرية

ابو بيشو

04-07-2016, 10:41 PM

I had a car.)passive)
1. The passive of this sentence would be "A car was had by me", BUT
2. this is not idiomatic English: HAVE, in the sense of possess, is not ordinarily employed in the passive voice.
He has a car.
The word have is a stative verb. You can't convert it into the passive. "The car is being had by me" certainly wouldn't be an English sentence. On the other hand, you could say "I drove the car" or "The car was driven by me".

Some stative verbs can be expressed in the passive voice. Example:

• The house is owned by Tom.
• Stative verbs are verbs that describe a state and consequently the stative verb is not usually used in the progressive aspect, which is used for incomplete actions in progress.
• STATIVE VERB EXAMPLE:
• EG: They own a cottage in Somerset. (The possession is a state and not an action. We cannot write this sentence in the progressive aspect)

Second, not all active voice verbs have a passive voice, and some passive uses of verbs change the meaning. "Have" is an example of the second. We can say "I have been had", but it means "cheated", not owned.
You can change an active sentence into the passive only iff you can maintain the same meaning:

Active: I have a car. (Means, I own a car)
Passive: A car is had by me. (Means, I cheat(ed) a car)

==> Notice the difference in meaning between the active sentence and the passive sentence. As Mike nicely pointed out, if there is a difference in meaning, then you know you can't change it into the passive voice.

Active: I lack money. (Means, I don't have money)
Passive: Money is lacked by me. (Means, I ACT on money)

==> Notice the change in meaning. Also, 'to lack something" describes a state. Passive verbs describe an ACT(ion). Active verbs undergo passivization because they express an action. The doer ACTS upon something:

John (doer) ate the cake (something).
The cake (something) was eaten by John (doer).

Active: He is John. (Means, He is called John)
Passive: John is by he. (Means, John is_____ by he)

==> Notice the change in meaning. Also notice the verb "BE" links a subject with its complement. There is no object, no 'something', in *John is_____ by he. There is a subject and its complement:

He is John. (Subject & Complement)

Passive verbs need objects--things the doer can act upon.

Active: She resembles his mother. (She looks like his mother)
Passive: His mother is resembled by her. (His mother is acted upon by her. ungrammatical)

==> Note the change in meaning from 'she looks like her', which is a description, to 'His mother is acted upon', which is an action.

In short, passive structures have active transitive verbs (verbs that transfer an action onto someone or something.
Moreover, use the passive when the agent is unknown (e.g. The sun was created), when the object is in focus (e.g. The building was constructed out of glass), and when you don't want to name the agent or place focus on the agent (e.g. My car was in an accident --I crashed my car)
How to change sentence from active to passive voice He has a car?

The only 'correct' answer is 'A car is had by him' which of course sounds nonsensical.
Of course it sounds less ridiculous when we change the verb from 'have', to 'own' or 'possess', but that changes the meaning. It's possible the man 'has' a car, but doesn't own or possess it.

Perhaps your teacher just wanted to emphasize how silly the Passive Voice CAN sound if it's over-used.
I have a car .change into passive voice
The word have is a stative verb.you can't convert it into passive."the car is being had by me"is not an English sentence
It has non acting verb "HAVE" so this sentence can't be changed into passive voice
"a car was had by me " it does not give any meaning Your sentence is fine in the active voice. It sounds awkward when you rewrite the sentence in the passive. That sentence does not have a passive counterpart that would be acceptable in Standard English.

Yes, you can follow the standard recipe for passivization, which would straightforwardly lead you to write

[1] *A car is had by me.
[Here the '*' signifies that what follows is ungrammatical or in some way unacceptable]

I suppose [1] is what whoever assigned this problem is expecting. But whoever assigned that problem should have known better: [1] is not acceptable in Standard English. This is so even though, if you change have to own, then the corresponding passive is just fine:A car is owned by me.

Here is what CGEL says about that (p. 246). The relevant passages concern the sentences [3iia] and [3iib]. The key statement, which I have put in boldface, is this: 'there is a related passive when the verb is own but not when it is have':

(begin quote)
The object of an active clause prototypical corresponds to the subject of a related passive:

[2] a. Pat overlooked the error. [O] b. The error [S] was overlooked (by Pat).

The term 'related passive* applies to the actual passive counterpart (The error was overlooked by Pat) or one differing from the latter by the absence of the by phrase, the internalized complement (The error was overlooked).

It must be emphasised, however, that such a correspondence does not hold for all objects, and that the subject of a passive does not always correspond to the object of the verb in the active:

[3] i a. His uncle owned two yachts. b. Two yachts were owned by his uncle.
ii a. His uncle had two yachts. b. *Two yachts were had by his uncle.
iii a. He has drunk out of this glass. b. This glass has been drunk out of.

We see from [i-ii] that there is a related passive when the verb is own but not when it is have, and yet there is no independent syntactic evidence for assigning different functions to two yachts. Whether or not there is an acceptable related passive for a given active clause depends on the interaction of pragmatic, semantic, syntactic, and lexical factors: it cannot satisfactorily be reduced to a simple matter of the presence or absence of O in the active. Example [iii] illustrates the second point, that it is not only transitive clauses that have related passives. This glass in [a] corresponds to the subject of the passive [b], but it is functioning as complement of a preposition, not as object of drink.
(end quote)

That the pasivized have is not acceptable in Standard English can be confirmed by searching google books for phrases such as "was had", "were had", "is had", and "are had". The number of hits is actually not low, but when this passivized have does appear, it is virtually always in quite specialized, technical contexts. It is not at all unusual that some feature be standard in certain special contexts, but unacceptable in broader Standard English. Here are some of these examples of what is arguably technical usage, most of them in philosophical academic writing:

It is a question of the nature of the female partners, whether it is had with girls of the same social level or with girls of lower social levels... (source)
In most manuscripts of Bartholomeus's translation, the text speaks of those “with whom” intercourse is had. (source)
Similarly, at a time T3 an idea is had of t3, beside t1, and so forth until the limit of the subjective shifting of time is reached. (source)
To illustrate the notion of a property rooted outside the times at which it is had, suppose that... (source)
Thus two different properties that are had by all and only the same things in the actual world will differ in the things that have them in other possible worlds. (source)
Any property had [this is the so-called bare passive] by any ordinal when all its predecessors have it is had by all ordinals. (source)
But they are wrong in that at one and the same time they say that the havable is had and assume that it is separable. Secondly it is not made clear in this way how it is had, nor how it is present... (source)
Now among things which are had, there seems to be this distinction, that there are some in which there is no medium between the haver and that which is had.(source)
Similarly, what explains the unity of a person's whole life is the fact that all of the experiences in this life are had by the same person. (source)
Concerning the first, we must observe that to have, as said in regard to anything that is had, is common to the various predicaments. (source)
The Spirit is the true and perfect righteousness that is had in Christ. (source)

Finally, there were a few hits in non-technical contexts. But they are so low in number that they cannot be used to argue that the passive use of have belongs to Standard English; it is more plausible to regard these as idiosyncratic, nonstandard usages by their authors:

The techniques to making paper are easy, the necessary tools are inexpensive, and quality results are had in a very short time. (source)
The point I am making is that in our new view of democracy, rights are had by any member of any democratic organization. (source)

Finally, one should mention the idiomatic expression to be had, as in