Passive voice with tense

Question

Bertrand Russell writes: The rigid determinacy of physics was to have been avoided; and Spinoza recognized that it could not be done as such.
Does the verb form ´to have been avoided´ contain the present perfect infinitive (to have been) in the passive voice?
Can ´was to have been avoided´ be replaced with ´should have been avoided´ without change of meaning?
Is the verb form ´was´ used as a surrogate modal verb?
An early answer would oblige.
Walter De Haes

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

AnonymousDoes the verb form ´to have been avoided´ contain the ~~present~~ perfect infinitive (to have been) in the passive voice?

Yes, it is the perfect infinitive, passive voice.

AnonymousCan ´was to have been avoided´ be replaced with ´should have been avoided´ without change of meaning?

To me the meaning of "should" is not exactly the same. It is less determinant (weaker) than "was." It was not a recommendation or advice, but something to be attained with determination.

AnonymousIs the verb form ´was´ used as a surrogate modal verb?

It depends on the grammarian that you follow. In some systems, that might be a reasonable qualification.

Anonymous · Answer

AnonymousIs the verb form ´was´ used as a surrogate modal verb?

Definitely not! It has nothing to do with modality. But it is an auxiliary verb. This is evident from its behaviour with respect to inversion (to form interrogatives) and negation (to form negatives):

The rigid determinacy of physics was to have been avoided. [declarative]
Was the rigid determinacy of physics to have been avoided? [interrogative - subject inverts with verb]
The rigid determinacy of physics was not to have been avoided. [negative - marked by the word "not"]

Lexical verbs, however, do not behave that way - they require dummy "do", as you'll see when we replace auxiliary "was" with lexical "seem":

The rigid determinacy of physics seemed to have been avoided. [declarative]
Did the rigid determinacy of physics seem to be avoided? [interrogative - marked by dummy verb "do"]
The rigid determinacy of physics did not seem to be avoided. [negative - marked by dummy verb "do" + "not"]

See what I mean?

AlpheccaStars · Answer

AnonymousBut it is an auxiliary verb. This is evident from its behaviour with respect to inversion (to form interrogatives) and negation (to form negatives):

Well, let's do a little test, and modify the sentence a tad.
The rigid determinacy of physics was unavoidable. (This is the finite verb "be". There is no other verb to be found in the sentence, so it is difficult for me to accept its description solely as an auxiliary. Be has the unique property of being able to function as a main verb and auxiliary at the same time.)

Was the rigid determinacy of physics unavoidable?
The rigid determinacy of physics was not unavoidable.

It also can be fully inflected, unlike true modal auxiliaries viz.:
The rigid determinacy of physics will be unavoidable.
The rigid determinacy of physics is unavoidable.

The poster's question was what you call this (if was+to were to be replaced with should):
The rigid determinacy of physics should have been avoided.

One site calls this a modal verb + perfect infinitive, so I assume the poster's question related to this sort of definition. (http://www.englishgrammar.org/perfect-infinitive/ )
I disagree with this classification, preferring the appellation modal auxiliary + present perfect tense.
But different grammarians use different terminology.

Anonymous · Answer

AlpheccaStarsWell, let's do a little test, and modify the sentence a tad.
The rigid determinacy of physics was unavoidable. (This is the finite verb "be". There is no other verb to be found in the sentence, so it is difficult for me to accept its description solely as an auxiliary. Be has the unique property of being able to function as a main verb and auxiliary at the same time.)
Was the rigid determinacy of physics unavoidable?
The rigid determinacy of physics was not unavoidable.

You're missing the point. The contrast is between auxiliary and lexical verbs (not main verbs). It's an important division between roughly a dozen auxiliary verbs and all the rest, which we call lexical verbs. (Note that within the auxiliaries there are major differences between the special subclass known as modal auxiliaries and the rest of the class called non-modal). The auxiliaries differ sharply in grammatical behaviour from lexical verbs - to determine which verbs are auxiliaries we need to apply the grammatical criteria relating to subject-auxiliary inversion and negation. If we do that, we find that be qualifies as a non-modal auxiliary verb not just when it's marking progressive aspect or passive voice, but also when it's the only verb in the clause, taking a complement with the form of an AdjP, NP, etc. Its behaviour with respect to inversion and negation is the same in this construction as in those where it's marking progressive aspect or passive voice, as this example shows:

be as ASPECT MARKER be as ONLY VERB

He is acting strangely. He is strange.
Is he acting strangely? Is he strange?
He is not acting strangely. He is not strange.

Now compare seem (a lexical verb) with be (if it really were a lexical verb). Dummy do is of course required for inversion and negation with lexical verbs:

lexical verb seem be if it were a lexical verb

He seems strange. He is strange.
Does he seem strange? *Does he is strange?
He does not seem strange. *He does not is strange.

Clearly, be cannot be seen as a lexical verb like seem because it is impossible to employ dummy do; which is why be is always an auxiliary verb. Of course, where be is the only verb in the clause you can call it the main verb if you wish, but "main" is not a grammatical term - grammatically it's still an auxiliary verb.

AlpheccaStarsThe poster's question was what you call this (if was+to were to be replaced with should):
The rigid determinacy of physics should have been avoided.
One site calls this a modal verb + perfect infinitive, so I assume the poster's question related to this sort of definition. (http://www.englishgrammar.org/perfect-infinitive/ )
I disagree with this classification, preferring the appellation modal auxiliary + present perfect tense.
But different grammarians use different terminology

I agree with the modal+infinitive analysis. Should is a modal auxiliary - modals are followed by the infinitive form of the verb; in this case have. I would call the subordinate clause have been avoided a perfect infinitival.

Best
J

Passive voice with tense

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions