On Saturday 15 March 2003 02:17 pm, you wrote: > Tim May wrote: > > Just out of interest, what about those phrasings was supposed to be > > particularly Australian? (I find them fine, although I'd probably > > insert "themselves" after "establish" in the second example.) > > 'Another Australian characteristic is the passiveless passive: > "tax-assessments issue", "interest rates reduce", "courses offer at > universities"[*] and "patients or their symptons present at their > doctors' surgeries": passive in meaning, but not in expression. I would tend to classify that as middle/reflexive voice. The object is identical with the subject, it's just not expressed. Wesley Parish To give > two recent examples from ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corp., the > government-owned broadcasting corp, like the BBC] news programs, "People > weren't involved in trade during the war" and "The cost structure is > making it very difficult for businesses to establish there". It is not > that Australians are trying to avoid saying who did something, rather, > many verbs which must be passive for such contexts in other types of > English need not be so in Australian English, even in a formal > situation.' (From an article called 'Strine' by David and Maya Bradley, > but I don't know what it was in or where it's from.) > > *: this one seems to be ungramatical to me. I would prefer 'courses > offered at universities'. Perhaps in more context, it'd be okay, but > like that, it certainly isn't. > > Tristan. -- Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."