Se passive v normal passive

Question

I've been trying to ask native spanish speakers (Argentines) this and they always seem really perplexed at what im asking. But im confused as to when you're supposed to use the nomal passive voice like 'el edificio fue construido por las personas" y the passive voice construction using se like 'el movimiento se basa en el manifiesto'. This is tough for me. Does the passive se construction even exist??? Or is it more just of a mutation of the reflexive construction. In reality, the relationship between passive se construction, impersonal se construction, and reflexive construction is really a disaster in my mind right now. And how im viewing it isnt really in the context of simple sentences but more in terms of academic texts and academic essays because that is what im doing right now! thanks so much for your help!

Answer 1

when you're supposed to use the nomal passive voice like 'el edificio fue construido por las personas" y the passive voice construction using se like 'el movimiento se basa en el manifiesto'.

Normal? The passive with 'se' is the modern version of a structure that Indo-European languages (Spanish and English are Indo-European languages) have had for over 10 thousand years, while what you call "normal" passive is a recent invention created just a few centuries ago, and there are many Indo-European languages that has never developed it.

This is tough for me. Does the passive se construction even exist???

I think I have already answered your question: English lost it, but many other languages haven't. Your "normal" passive construction is a newcomer that only exists in a few languages.

Or is it more just of a mutation of the reflexive construction.

Not a mutation, but a convergence. Indo-European languages have lost a lot of their original morpho-syntax, and English created this periphrastic structure to replace the loss of middle meanings, while Spanish merged reflexive and middle structures into a single 'se'.

In reality, the relationship between passive se construction, impersonal se construction, and reflexive construction is really a disaster in my mind right now. And how im viewing it isnt really in the context of simple sentences but more in terms of academic texts and academic essays because that is what im doing right now! thanks so much for your help!

Would you like a bibliography on this topic? I can give you several books that explain all this, but they are not easy reading, I warn you.

Alternatively, you can always hope that I finish my grammar (but I am a mess, so it is not likely to happen)

You are a mess?? Seem to look pretty good in your picture. - territurtle, Jul 2, 2011

I have read many different articles regarding 'se' and I can tell you that, without a doubt, your articles in the reference sections are by far the best. I actually feel like I more or less now understand when and how to use 'se'! - billygoat, Jul 2, 2011

I have actually simplified the explanations considerably. The section I am writing on SE has a lot of pages, and literally many hundreds of examples with pictures to make things more intuitive. - lazarus1907, Jul 2, 2011

But can you explain when should you use one versus the other? - griff2213, Jul 2, 2011

Answer 2

I'm pretty sure that Latin has/had a passive voice and ancient Greek even had an active, a middle and a passive voice, the middle voice being something in between active and passive and more or less being kind of reflexive.

Of course they had passive and middle voices, but they were part of the verb, like "-ería" is part of "comería" for the conditional or "-es" is part of "mires" for the subjunctive. The "normal" passive being discussed here is the periphrastic one that uses two verbs: "to be" (or ser) as a helper verb, and then a past participle. This one is fairly the recent creation I was referring to. If I remember correctly, among all Germanic languages, only Gothic retained the old Indo-European morphological passive forms.

Old English did not a have a synthetic passive, except for (ironically) "to be called" (=llamarse), a verb that never made it into modern English. Most of the equivalents of the modern passive were done like in modern German, with "man" and "weorthan" (to become, cf. weder in German), both lost. The passive as we know it in English nowadays did not become mainstream until about the 15th century, and the Norman influence probably had a lot to do with it.

"... a lot to do with it." - samdie, Jul 2, 2011

Answer 3

Only a few centuries? You make me wonder. I'm pretty sure that Latin has/had a passive voice and ancient Greek even had an active, a middle and a passive voice, the middle voice being something in between active and passive and more or less being kind of reflexive. All very interesting but real hell to learn for anyone who wasn't an ancient Greek. .