After 'must' or have to' in passive voice

Question

Why after 'must' and 'has to' in passive voice always comes the auxiliary verb 'to be'?For example: It must be washed or it has to be washed.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Why after 'must' and 'has to' in passive voice always comes the auxiliary verb 'to be'? For example: It must be washed or it has to be washed.[/nq]
"Passive" means in a state or condition of receiving actions. A state or condition requires a verb describing the state, and that principle verb is "is" or other forms of "be", although other verbs can stand in for that remain, stay, stand, rest, appear.
I (am) stand corrected (You have changed my behavior). I (am) remain unconvinced (You haven't convinced me). My case (is rested) rests ("I rest my case"). I finished the job. The job is completed.

(This is the first time I have had to analyze passive voice, so I welcome any comments or additions.) When I studied Spanish, we learned the reflexive (self) as another kind of passive, but felt that would go afield from the question.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Why after 'must' and 'has to' in passive voice always comes the auxiliary verb 'to be'? For example: It must be washed or it has to be washed.[/nq]
The passive voice requires a form of "to be" for its formation. If you don't have some form of "to be," you don't have the passive. What you are asking about is simply a specific instance of this.

Active: John hit Jamnes
Passive: James was hit by John.

Bob Lieblich, AmEclectic
Who was asked, and who answered

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Why after 'must' and 'has to' in passive voice always comes the auxiliary verb 'to be'?[/nq]
The "to" in "has to" should give you a clue: These and other modal auxiliary verbs are always used with an infinitive. We don't say "must washed" because "washed" isn't an infinitive. The infinitive of the passive form is "to be washed," so we say "must be washed," "has to be washed," "should be washed," "might be washed," etc. One way to think of it is that the modal auxiliary is a transitive verb, and the infinitive is its object.
¬R http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/zangelding.html "When there's a nuclear attack, that's when buckets are used." Tim Brown, IUSD

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Why after 'must' and 'has to' in passive voice always comes the auxiliary verb 'to be'?[/nq]
[nq:1]The "to" in "has to" should give you a clue: These and other modal auxiliary verbs are always used with ... way to think of it is that the modal auxiliary is a transitive verb, and the infinitive is its object.[/nq]
But ...
(1) The formation of the passive always requires a form of "to be," no matter what else is in the sentence. Except in cases of obvious elision, you can't have the passive voice if you don't have "to be." It's like trying to create the progressive aspect without an -ing form. And the way I learned it, the modal is not a transitive verb, and the infinitive is not its object. I leave to others whether "has to" can be considered a modal; it's not a modal in my grammar text.

(2) Neither "must" nor "has to" requires a passive. A modal can just as easily precede the active as the passive. If I say "I must wash my hands," that's in the active voice (passive equivalent "My hands must be washed.") Modal + infinitive, but active. It's true that modals are ordinarily followed by the infinitive form (I can't think of an exception just now, but I'm leaving room for the inevitable counterexample), but the infinitive can just as easily be active as passive.

Bob Lieblich, AmEclectic
GOM

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1](1) The formation of the passive always requires a form of "to be," no matter what else is in the sentence.[/nq]
Seems like 'I stand corrected' is passive voice, and there's no form of the verb 'be' in it, although 'stand' is nearly equivalent to 'am' in that sentence.
'I appeared betrayed' is arguably passive, but I would probably take the 'nay' side in the debate.
The 'aye' side might argue that if 'I appeared betrayed' has an active verb with the adjective 'betrayed' in the predicate, then the same can be said of 'I was betrayed.' That is, 'I was betrayed' is equivalent to 'I existed betrayed,' so 'I was betrayed' would be active voice as much as 'I appeared betrayed' is.
Think Descartes: 'I ponder, ergo I exist.'

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1](1) The formation of the passive always requires a form of "to be," no matter what else is in the sentence.[/nq]
But what uri was asking is why that's true why he needs another auxiliary verb when he's already got a perfectly good one.
[nq:1]form. And the way I learned it, the modal is not a transitive verb, and the infinitive is not its object.[/nq]
Well, no. That's why I said that was one* way to think of it, not *the way to think of it.
[nq:1]I leave to others whether "has to" can be considered a modal;[/nq]
In current spoken use, it's pretty nearly an exact substitute for "must." A few other transitive verbs are used similarly: "want," "need," "care." That's why I thought thinking of the modal as transitive might help uri grasp how these expressions work.
[nq:1](2) Neither "must" nor "has to" requires a passive.[/nq]
Right, I meant to include an active example to show how they're parallel.
[nq:1]It's true that modals are ordinarily followed by the infinitive form (I can't think of an exception just now,[/nq]
Oh, I bet you can.
¬R Plus meditandum, minus misculandum. (Marty Shapiro, deftly translated by Sean Fitzpatrick)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2](1) The formation of the passive always requires a form of "to be," no matter what else is in the sentence.[/nq]
[nq:1]Seems like 'I stand corrected' is passive voice,[/nq]
I wouldn't say so, actually. It seems to me about the same as any other clause-modifying use of a participle. It doesn't describe the action of being corrected; it describes your state afterward.

I'd say some uses of "get" with past participles are passive constructions, though. Others are not, and the distinction can be subtle and idiomatic. "I got married" describes a change of state and isn't a passive form of "marry," but "I got hit" describes an action and I'd call it a passive form of "hit."
¬R http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/zangelding.html "When there's a nuclear attack, that's when buckets are used." Tim Brown, IUSD

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Seems like 'I stand corrected' is passive voice,[/nq]
[nq:1]I wouldn't say so, actually. It seems to me about the same as any other clause-modifying use of a participle. It doesn't describe the action of being corrected; it describes your state afterward.[/nq]
Like many if not most English statements, it can have a variety of intended meanings. It can mean the same as 'I have been corrected.' Is the latter not clearly passive?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I wouldn't say so, actually. It seems to me about ... the action of being corrected; it describes your state afterward.[/nq]
[nq:1]Like many if not most English statements, it can have a variety of intended meanings. It can mean the same as 'I have been corrected.' Is the latter not clearly passive?[/nq]
Using a different construction to get the same meaning does not mean that the different construction is the same construction as the original. In fact, it is different by definition. "I hit him" and "He was hit by me" mean the same, but one is plainly active and the other just as plainly passive. No number of analogous constructions with the same meaning will change "I hit him" into a passive.

The search facility at Language Log is still unavailable (although the site itself is back up at a new location:
), so I can't find cite of the saeveral entries in which the LLers discuss the inability of most English speakers to tell a passive from a handsaw. Instead, let's quote the first site that comes up when you google for :

THE PASSIVE VOICE
PASSIVE, FORM
The passive voice in English is composed of two elements : the appropriate form of the verb 'to be' + the past participle of the verb in question:
(examples snipped)
See

My point, which I realize I have failed so far to make with sufficient clarity (sorry about that), is that, grammatically, the passive is dependent on its specific form for its very existence: the only way you form the passive is by pairing a past participle with a form of "to be", just as you form the progressive aspect by using an -ing form (aka "present participle") with a form of "to be." If it doesn't have the form of the passive voice, it isn't the passive voice. All sorts of constructions can carry meanings that the passive voice can also carry, and you can get the passive "feeling" from all sorts of things that aren't syntactically passive, but if it doesn't have both "to be" and a past participle, it ain't the passive.
If you go back to the original post, it seems quite clear to me that the OP was asking about syntax. So I answered him about syntax. All the little romantic effusions on the subject of "that passive feeling" might be of some use in a creative writing course, but they just confuse the poor poster asking a question in Syntax 101.
[nq:2]I'd say some uses of "get" with past participles are ... action and I'd call it a passive form of "hit."[/nq]
And you'd be wrong.

Bob Lieblich, AmEclectic
Further comment eschewed

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]And you'd be wrong.[/nq]
[nq:1]get verbal auxiliary -used with the past participle of transitive verbs as a passive voice auxiliary [/nq]
Random House and American Heritage both agree, with the caveat that it's used only informally.
¬R -+- http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/engel.html -+- All in all, though, I'd have to agree that it gets a bit tiresome to see someone continually reminding others that he's a writer. Kevin S. Wilson, Tech Writer etc.

After 'must' or have to' in passive voice

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions