Does this sentence have a passive form?

I don't think it has, because "under the bridge" is not a direct object complement. In a passive sentence, the active voice direct object complement becomes the subject.

I find myself saying "The bridge was lived under by trolls."

But it may infringe some grammatical rule.

MrP

Syntactically, English allows a prepositional object in active voice to become the subject in passive voice.

[1] PieAnne slept in this bed yesterday.
[2] This bed was slept in by PieAnne yesterday.
[3] Paco slept in this bed yesterday.
[4] This bed was slept in by Paco yesterday.
The sentence #2 is correct syntactically as well as semantically. The sentence #4 may be syn

I wonder if this is a case of 'passivizing' while at the same time not being a 'true passive'. There are quite a number of cases where the object of a preposition can become a subject. Do these passivizations merit a different name than 'passive'? Is there some terminology to handle this? 'Oblique passive'? Something like that?

That bed was slept in by George Washington.

Hmm. Does that mean we have a subject complement, rather than a true passive?

1. The bridge was lived under by trolls.

MrP

MrPedanticDoes that mean we have a subject complement, rather than a true passive?

1. The bridge was lived under by trolls.I too am inclined to think so.

paco

Just a question: "would anybody say that?" (supposing trolls do exist in real life)

"Euuuuwch. Have you looked under that rickety bridge lately? It's absolutely disgusting down there."

"Oh, I know. I'm afraid it was lived under by a troll for a couple of years."

"A troll? [somewhat nervously] But it's gone now, right?"

"Oh yes, it went a long time ago. I don't know the exact story; but there was some unpleasantness with a family of billy-goats, I believ

Ah! So itwas a male troll!

Apologies to all for my narrow-minded original answer...

And thank you Paco and MrP for providing your convincing examples