I see that you are a new member, so welcome to the Forums. But you don't seem to realize that our job here is to answer questions you may have about grammar, vocabulary and usage.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Philip5 This doesn't make sense to me. Participles don't have voicePhilip, I think the reference is to "active" participles (in English we say "present" participles) and "passive" participles ("past" participles).
CalifJim Philip5 This doesn't make sense to me. Participles don't have voicePhilip, I think the reference is to "active" participles (in English we say "present" participles) and "passive" participles ("past" participles).Actually, I think "active" and "passive" captures the idea better than "present" and "past", but historically we ended up with the terminology that we h
RacqalI meant the action happens to the doer, in other words your example is to be good even without "often" and we can shortly say John was ridiculed.Given those criteria, it seems to me that any passive construction with an animate being as subject and an action verb would fit the bill. I don't see where the idea of repetition comes into it.