Anglonautes > Grammaire anglaise explicative - niveau avancé > GV > Passif

Les anglonautes

learning > grammaire anglaise - niveau avancé

syntaxe

formes verbales

passif

séquences passives

beauxiliaire + verbeau participe passé

ellipse de beauxiliaire

[ Ø beauxiliaire ]

verbeau participe passé

Cette ellipse est fréquente

dans les titres d'articles :

Gunman admitted killing Toni-Ann,

court toldparticipe passé

Gunman admitted killing Toni-Ann,

court [ Ø = is ] toldparticipe passé

· Trial opens of drug dealer accused of double murder

· Confessions 'made to girlfriends and cellmates'

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jul/06/
ukcrime.ukguns

Rappelons

que le verbe irrégulier tell

a 3 formes,

dont 2 identiques :

tell (base verbale)

told (passé)

told (participe passé)

Rappelons aussi ceci :

1 / 2 - Tous les verbes réguliers

ont la même finale (-ed)

au passé

au participe passé.

Exemple de verbe régulier :

kill

(base verbale = forme non conjuguée du verbe)

killed

(passé, également appelé prétérit)

killed

(participe passé)

2 / 2 - Certains verbes irréguliers

ont la même forme

au passé et au participe passé.

Exemples de verbe irrégulier

avec passé et participe passé

identiques :

tell

(base verbale)

told

(passé)

told

(participe passé)

shoot

(base verbale)

shot

(passé)

shot

(participe passé)

Pour un lecteur / auditeur

qui n'a pas l'habitude de la presse,

l'ellipse de beauxiliaire

peut être source de confusion

et même de contre-sens

lorsqu'il lit / entend un énoncé passif

avec ellipse de beauxiliaire :

7 People [ Ø = areauxiliaire ] Shotparticipe passé,

3 Fatally,

on Violent Day in Newark

beauxiliaire

réapparaît dans le premier paragraphe :

Seven people were shot,

three of them fatally,

in an explosion of violence

in Newark on Thursday evening.

7 People Shot, 3 Fatally, on Violent Day in Newark,
NYT,
23 December 2010,
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/
nyregion/24newark.html

Ceci étant posé,

revenons à l'énoncé :

Gunman admitted killing Toni-Ann,

court [ Ø = is ] toldparticipe passé

Dans cette structure passive

avec ellipse de beauxiliaire,

attention à ne pas prendre

le passif pour de l'actif,

ce qui aboutirait

à un contre-sens :

ce n'est pas le tribunal

qui "raconte" (action -> actif)

que le tireur a reconnu

avoir tué Toni-Ann,

c'est au contraire (passif)

le tribunal qui apprend cette information,

comme le confirme le second sous-titre,

relatif aux aveux du tireur :

· Confessions

'made to girlfriends and cellmates'

Traduction explicative de

court [ Ø = is ] toldparticipe passé :

le tribunal a été informé

que le tireur a reconnu...

Pour éviter le contre-sens,

il ne faut donc pas confondre

passif et actif :

verbeau participe passé

dans une structure passive

avec ellipse de beauxiliaire

- Gunman admitted killing Toni-Ann,

court [ Ø = is ] toldparticipe passé -

≠

verbeconjugué au passé

dans une structure active :

He toldpassé irrégulier actif me

who did it.

autres énoncés

avec ellipse de beauxiliaire

Forme passive pleine

( beauxiliaire + verbeau participe passé )

à la Une du Guardian,

le 22 février 2021 :

Hope for normality

as Pfizer vaccine is rolled out across nation

22 February 2021

screenshot dans prochaine édition

Un clic sur ce titre affiche l'article,

avec un titre similaire,

mais à la forme contractée du passif

( Ø + verbeau participe passé ) :

Hope for normality

as Pfizer vaccine Ø rolled out

to priority groups across nation

Ellipse de beauxiliaire

Comme le complément d'agent (by + N),

beauxiliaire

n'apparaît souvent pas dans les :

- titres d'articles >

voir ci-dessus > court [ Ø = is ] told

- séries de verbes au passif

(série verbalepassif)

ellipse fréquente de

beauxiliaire

dans les titres d'articles

et les slogans

Michigan high school shooter

[ Ø = is ] sentenced

to Life in Prison without Parole

December 8, 2023 NPR

The Guardian p. 36 28 February 2006

The Guardian p. 1 16 December 2008

http://digital.guardian.co.uk/guardian/2008/12/16/pdfs/gdn_081216_ber_1_21469104.pdf

Middle East

5 [ ellipse de beauxiliaire > are ] Killed

in Tel Aviv and West Bank

by Palestinian Attackers

NOV. 19, 2015

The New York Times

By ISABEL KERSHNER

JERUSALEM — Five people were killed on Thursday

in two stabbing and shooting attacks carried out

by Palestinian assailants in Tel Aviv and the West Bank,

according to the Israeli authorities,

in a renewed burst of deadly violence

that came after a few days of relative calm.

(...)

5 Killed in Tel Aviv and West Bank by Palestinian Attackers,
NOV. 19, 2015,
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/
world/middleeast/palestinian-stabs-israelis-in-tel-aviv.html

7 People

[ ellipse de beauxiliaire > are ] Shot,

3 Fatally, on Violent Day in Newark

December 23, 2010

The New York Time

By ANAHAD O’CONNOR

and KAREEM FAHIM

Seven people were shot,

three of them fatally,

in an explosion of violence

in Newark on Thursday evening.

The bloodshed was part of a spate of shootings

and violent carjackings — including the carjacking

of a state official — in the city over the last month.

7 People Shot, 3 Fatally, on Violent Day in Newark,
NYT,
23.12.2010,
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/
nyregion/24newark.html

passif

avec ellipse de beauxiliaire

attention aux contre-sens !

The Guardian p. 1 6 July 2007

Public

[ ellipse de beauxiliaire > is ] Said

to Be Misled

[ infinitif passif ]

on Use of the Patriot Act

September 21, 2011

The New York Times

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — Two United States senators on Wednesday accused the Justice Department of making misleading statements about the legal justification of secret domestic surveillance activities that the government is apparently carrying out under the Patriot Act.

The lawmakers — Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, both of whom are Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — sent a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. calling for him to “correct the public record” and to ensure that future department statements about the authority the government believes is conveyed by the surveillance law would not be misleading.

“We believe that the best way to avoid a negative public reaction and an erosion of confidence in U.S. intelligence agencies is to initiate an informed public debate about these authorities today,” the two wrote. “However, if the executive branch is unwilling to do that, then it is particularly important for government officials to avoid compounding that problem by making misleading statements.”

The Justice Department denied being misleading about the Patriot Act, saying it has acknowledged that a secret, sensitive intelligence program is based on the law and that its statements about the matter have been accurate.

Mr. Wyden and Mr. Udall have for months been raising concerns that the government has secretly interpreted a part of the Patriot Act in a way that they portray as twisted, allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct some kind of unspecified domestic surveillance that they say does not dovetail with a plain reading of the statute.

The dispute has focused on Section 215 of the Patriot Act. It allows a secret national security court to issue an order allowing the F.B.I. to obtain “any tangible things” in connection with a national security investigation. It is sometimes referred to as the “business records” section because public discussion around it has centered on using it to obtain customer information like hotel or credit card records.

But in addition to that kind of collection, the senators contend that the government has also interpreted the provision, based on rulings by the secret national security court, as allowing some other kind of activity that allows the government to obtain private information about people who have no link to a terrorism or espionage case.

Justice Department officials have sought to play down such concerns, saying that both the court and the intelligence committees know about the program. But the two lawmakers contended in their letter that officials have been misleading in their descriptions of the issue to the public.

First, the senators noted that Justice Department officials, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, had described Section 215 orders as allowing the F.B.I. to obtain the same types of records for national security investigations that they could get using a grand jury subpoena for an ordinary criminal investigation. But the two senators said that analogy does not fit with the secret interpretation.

The senators also criticized a recent statement by a department spokesman that “Section 215 is not a secret law, nor has it been implemented under secret legal opinions by the Justice Department.” This was “extremely misleading,” they said, because there are secret legal opinions controlling how Patriot Act is being interpreted — it’s just that they were issued by the national security court.

“In our judgment, when the legal interpretations of public statutes that are kept secret from the American public, the government is effectively relying on secret law,” they wrote.

That part of the dispute appeared to turn on semantics. The department said that while the national security court’s opinions interpreting the Patriot Act are classified, the law itself is public.

Public Said to Be Misled on Use of the Patriot Act,
NYT,
21.9.2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/
us/politics/justice-dept-is-accusedof-misleading-public-
on-patriot-act.html - broken link

Reid [ ellipse de beauxiliaire > is ] urged

to free thousands

as jail conditions worsen

Overcrowding 'puts public at risk'

Foreign prisoners await deportation

January 29, 2007

The Times

Richard Ford

and Frances Gibb

Britain’s jail watchdog will heap further pressure on the Home Secretary this week by giving warning that prison overcrowding is putting the public at risk.

Anne Owers will say that the overcrowding in England and Wales is hitting rehabilitation programmes intended to make offenders less likely to return to a life of crime.

She will also highlight the position of foreign national prisoners who remain in prison awaiting deportation despite having served their sentences.

John Reid, the Home Secretary, today admits that problems at his department will continue to be undermined by new crises and embarrassments.

He writes in The Guardian: “If you renovate a house you start by taking the wallpaper off. It is only then that you discover more problems. Indeed I expect more problems. Being Home Secretary is my biggest challenge. But it isn’t mission impossible.”

Last night it emerged that he had suffered a further setback in his efforts to speed up the deportation of prisoners from EU states. Poland is blocking attempts to allow transfers without a prisoner’s consent. An EU-wide deal would free 1,500 places.

Ms Owers, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, will also express concern at the number of prisoners being given indeterminate sentences — far more than the Government estimated.

Her intervention comes after an increase of 627 prisoners plunged the Home Office into another crisis and the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, tried to calm the furore over Mr Reid’s statement on sentencing.

In her annual report, Ms Owers will say that overcrowding makes rehabilitation more difficult as resources are spread more thinly and offenders are moved from jail to jail. She will highlight the plight of those with mental illnesses or drug addictions, saying that staff are too overstretched to cope with them. And she will argue that the number of mentally ill people being jailed is making overcrowding worse.

Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice, urges Mr Reid in The Times today to adopt the “nuclear option” of releasing thousands of non-dangerous prisoners to ease overcrowding. That is a measure that Mr Reid will take only as a last resort.

He also calls on Mr Reid to repeal or suspend laws that “force judges to use more and longer sentences than are necessary”. But he offers support for Mr Reid’s move last week to bring to the attention of the courts the state of the prisons and to restate guidelines that prison should be reserved for the dangerous, violent, sexual and prolific offenders.

Lord Woolf says that it would have been a “dereliction of duty” for the Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor not to issue their statement and dismisses as “muddled thinking” the suggestion that the move represented an encroachment on the independence of the judiciary.

Lord Phillips issued a statement saying it was proper for Mr Reid to remind judges of the state of prisons. He said Mr Reid’s statement about prison overcrowding had given a helpful summary and was consistent with sentencing legislation. “But [it] carries the implication that ministers hoped that judges would be particularly careful to consider, in each individual case, whether there was an appropriate means of disposal that did not involve immediate custody,” he said.

He added that in many cases custody was inevitable, but he said that where judges had a choice as to sentence there was the well-established authority of the Court of Appeal that it was appropriate to have regard to jail overcrowding.

Latest figures show that 51,800 of 90,000 offenders given an immediate custodial sentence in 2005 received six months or less. It is that huge number of offenders being jailed for very short periods that is causing concern as there is insufficient time for effective work to be done with them.

Many in the prison system believe that those who are not prolific offenders should be punished in the community.

The Home Office had hoped that its reform of sentencing, which has led to longer sentences for the dangerous and violent, would be matched by fewer non-violent offenders being jailed. John Denham, the Labour chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, said that radical thinking about sentencing was “desperately” needed — including more effective non-custodial sentences.

Mr Denham, a former Home Office minister, added: “We have got to make community punishments a more demanding and onerous punishment so that if somebody doesn’t go to prison it is still seen by the public as an adequate response to a lower level of crime.”