[DanaWhite]

My question may be a little strange...but I appreciate any help I can get.

Given a passive sentence: "The subjects have been captured by the officer"...

...and applying transformational rules to the underlying structure...

Underlying Structure: The officer past have en capture the suspect.
Passive Transformation: The suspect past have en be en capture by the officer.
Affix-Hopping: The suspect have+past be+en capture+en by the officer.

How does subject-verb agreement come into play? As a native english speaker I would say "The officer has captured the suspect" or "The suspects have been captured by the officer." It is unclear to me wether subject-verb agreement must be taken into account before or after the passive transformation. Regardless if the sentence is passive or active "the officer" is the subject of the sentence but the verb "have" seems to change depending on wether the sentence is active or passive. If "the officer" is always the subject how come the the verb "have" changes? I am just really confused about how subject-verb agreement comes into play here. Would I use it before or after the passive rule? Perhaps it doesn't matter at all?

Thanks my fellow Sherdoggers!

[Reaper Man]

Is this a homework assignment?

[chokingvictim]

I'm not sure what you're asking. The "have" doesn't matter, the "captured" or "been captured" after the word "have" is all that matters. I'm confused about what you're asking.

[DanaWhite]

I am trying to ask, if there was a transformational rule for Subject-Verb Agreement would you need to use it before the passive rule or would it not matter?

[dave_132]

Have is plural and the suspects is the subject in The suspects have ..

Has is singular and the officer is the subject in "The officer has ...

That's what I think anyway. I'll re-write a sentence to get out of some gray grammatical area. Just make sure you re-read the new sentence so it stays parallel.

[DanaWhite]

Well I think I figured it out, and it does not matter. In both sentences the subject is, "the officer."

Thanks for the help though.

[Matt]

Why can't you just say: "The officer captured the subjects."

Avoid that whole nasty business of "have been" in the first place. It's too clunky.

[muerteverde]

Originally Posted by DanaWhite

My question may be a little strange...but I appreciate any help I can get.

Given a passive sentence: "The subjects have been captured by the officer"...

...and applying transformational rules to the underlying structure...

Underlying Structure: The officer past have en capture the suspect.
Passive Transformation: The suspect past have en be en capture by the officer.
Affix-Hopping: The suspect have+past be+en capture+en by the officer.

How does subject-verb agreement come into play? As a native english speaker I would say "The officer has captured the suspect" or "The suspects have been captured by the officer." It is unclear to me wether subject-verb agreement must be taken into account before or after the passive transformation. Regardless if the sentence is passive or active "the officer" is the subject of the sentence but the verb "have" seems to change depending on wether the sentence is active or passive. If "the officer" is always the subject how come the the verb "have" changes? I am just really confused about how subject-verb agreement comes into play here. Would I use it before or after the passive rule? Perhaps it doesn't matter at all?

Thanks my fellow Sherdoggers!

I think you may have some typing errors in your two first examples there, so I don't fully understand what you are saying there.

The suspects have been captured by the officer. (passive voice, present perfect tense)
The officer has captured the suspects. (active voice, present perfect tense)

I think what you are missing (in your understanding) is that the subject and the object are reversed in a passive transformation. The same subject-verb agreement rules apply, but since are switching subjects (grammatically speaking) then we need the verb to agree with a new subject. That is why it changes from have to has in my two examples here. Here, let me explain more:

In the first sentence, "suspects" is the subject of the verb "to be". There is no object in that sentence because "by the officer" is a prepositional phrase. A part will ALWAYS fall out (grammaticaly speaking) of the sentence when you transform to the passive voice. Now in the second example, it is clear that "officer" is the subject of the verb "to capture" and "suspects" is the object.

In short, "officer" is NOT always the subject. That is the point of passive voice. We change to passive to shift emphasis and the object moves to the subject position. I hope that helps. PM if you have any more problems (or didn't understand what I wrote). I am studying to be an English teacher now and I am studying grammar specifically this semester.

[DanaWhite]

Thanks for the help muerteverde. I am currently in a course called "Structure of Modern English" and this question came up and I wasn't sure of what the answer was. I am content with the answer I have came up with (even though it seems like it is wrong). If you want to see the original question as it was phrased, here it is:

3. The surface forms of third-person present tense verbs in English vary, depending on whether the subject of the sentence is singular or plural (e.g., John walks to school every day; They walk to school every day).

Assume there is a transformational rule of SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT that determines the form of a verb depending on whether the subject is plural or singular. Now consider the following sentence:

A. The suspects have been captured by the officer.

a. Tell where SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT would have to be ordered with respect to PASSIVE in order to generate this sentence: (.5)

i. Before PASSIVE
ii. After PASSIVE
iii. It doesn’t make any difference

b. Referring to sentence (A), construct an argument for your answer to question (a). By “argument,” I mean a statement of the reasoning that you are using to arrive at your answer. (1)

[muerteverde]

Originally Posted by DanaWhite

Thanks for the help muerteverde. I am currently in a course called "Structure of Modern English" and this question came up and I wasn't sure of what the answer was. I am content with the answer I have came up with (even though it seems like it is wrong). If you want to see the original question as it was phrased, here it is:

3. The surface forms of third-person present tense verbs in English vary, depending on whether the subject of the sentence is singular or plural (e.g., John walks to school every day; They walk to school every day).

Assume there is a transformational rule of SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT that determines the form of a verb depending on whether the subject is plural or singular. Now consider the following sentence:

A. The suspects have been captured by the officer.

a. Tell where SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT would have to be ordered with respect to PASSIVE in order to generate this sentence: (.5)

i. Before PASSIVE
ii. After PASSIVE
iii. It doesn’t make any difference

b. Referring to sentence (A), construct an argument for your answer to question (a). By “argument,” I mean a statement of the reasoning that you are using to arrive at your answer. (1)

Confusing question. As it is worded, I would say "ii. after PASSIVE" but then I would make clear in my explanation what I told you, that you need to work out your agreement afterwards because the grammatical subject of the sentence shifts.

Oh, and in your post here, you should have written, "I am content with the answer I have come up with" ;) just messing with you!! I had to say it! I had to! jajajajajaja

My grammar class is fun because we get to make tons of crazy sentences each day and then share them with the class. I wrote about MMA, The Incredible Hulk, and aardvarks.