<p>被 is the passive voice. It is the "was" in "the disease was eradicated.</p>

<p>But it is not the usual "was" in the sense of 是, which is a "state" verb.</p>

<p>Instead, the implication of 被 is, "was done."</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-11T00:19:32.773Z
2012-08-11T00:19:32.773Z
Tom Au
<p>It is OK to remove the "被”; we use both versions in daily life. If you add "被", you emphasize the passive form, and in this sentence, this kind of "passive form" can be omitted because the meaning of this sentence will not change if you omit the "被". </p>

<p>I think this is different from English. English is used to emphasize the relationship of object by grammar, but Chinese is used to emphasize relation by meaning. And in this sentence "病" was cured, it is "passive form", even you don't add "被", everyone knows "病是被动的", so you can omit it. </p>

<p>If you add "被", it is very very correct, but if you do not add "被"，no one can say that is wrong.  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-06-01T04:53:59.467Z
2013-06-04T22:05:27.023Z
2013-06-04T22:05:27.023Z
JohnsonDiao
<p>被 + verb = passive form</p>

<p>根除 = eradicate</p>

<p>被根除 = be eradicated</p>

<p>Some verbs have active form with passive meaning. 根除 is one of them. So it's fine to remove 被 from this sentence.</p>

<p>(These verbs are very similar to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergative_verb" rel="noreferrer">ergative verbs</a> in English but mainstream Chinese grammar doesn't interpret them as ergative verbs.)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-12T11:26:35.780Z
That "active form with passive meaning" part doesn't sound confusing at all! :)
dr Hannibal Lecter
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-12T19:00:43.857Z
@drHannibalLecter, I should've used some examples in English, like 'sell' in 'The book sells good' is an active form with passive meaning. :)
NS.X.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-12T19:19:31.620Z
Well, that makes sense now. Is there a fixed number of Chinese verbs which can have this form with 被, or you can "convert" any verb that fits the sentence?
dr Hannibal Lecter
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-12T21:47:14.973Z
@NS.X. I prefer to think of this as an example of an ergative verb. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ergative_verb There are many ergative verbs in Chinese, just like in English. Another example would be 打敗 (to defeat someone, or to lose).
deutschZuid
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-12T22:29:43.637Z
@JamesJiao, I believe you're right. I don't know the terminologies very well :)
NS.X.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-12T22:36:46.483Z
@drHannibalLecter, I think there are a lot of them and I am not aware of any 'rules' for quick memorization.
NS.X.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-12T22:50:57.363Z
@JamesJiao Found a thesis on this very subject. http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2002_3_06_1607.pdf
NS.X.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-13T01:32:15.197Z
@drHannibalLecter I am not sure what your native language's rule on passivization is, but as a general rule, any transitive verbs can be passivized with 被 in Chinese similar to the 'to be + past participle' structure in English. So a list wouldn't make any sense here, as transitive verbs are usually productive (as in new verbs can be created and put in use).
deutschZuid
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-14T08:28:59.720Z
@JamesJiao / NS.X: Thanks for this, the English examples are quite helpful, I think I understand the general theme here. Grammar is not my strong suit, I just kind of intuit my way through languages, so hopefully I'll get a chance to pracise this some day.
dr Hannibal Lecter
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-29T20:57:27.050Z
@drHannibalLecter Why is "to be eradicated" being in the passive confusing at all? I appreciate learning about different classes of verbs and all, but this seems like a really simple case of passive. `被V` = `to be Ved`
Stumpy Joe Pete
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-29T22:15:32.147Z
@StumpyJoePete: I...really don't know how to answer that question. Why is _anything_ confusing when you're learning? A double slit experiment is a simple case of showing wave-particle duality, so why is it so confusing?
dr Hannibal Lecter
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-29T23:59:00.820Z
@drHannibalLecter Point taken. Just saying, this is, I think, a normal example of the passive voice.
Stumpy Joe Pete
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-30T08:20:22.070Z
@StumpyJoePete: Normally, I'd agree with you, but I think it was the sentence structure which confused me. I simply haven't seen anything like that in my native language.. I'm sure I'll be thinking the same thing as you some day, but you gotta think of us noobs :)
dr Hannibal Lecter
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-11T00:28:03.060Z
2013-05-29T17:53:03.437Z
2013-05-29T17:53:03.437Z
NS.X.
<p>I understand that the sentence means something like "This disease was eradicated 30 years ago", but I have no idea what role does 被 have in it?</p>

<p>Is the sentence okay if we remove it? Does it convey any special meaning when present?</p>

<grammar><meaning><sentence-structure>
What is 被 doing in sentence "这种病在三十年前就被根除了"?
# What is 被 doing in sentence "这种病在三十年前就被根除了"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-08-10)

I understand that the sentence means something like "This disease was eradicated 30 years ago", but I have no idea what role does 被 have in it?

Is the sentence okay if we remove it? Does it convey any special meaning when present?

**Tags:** grammar, meaning, sentence-structure


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2012-08-11. Score: 10 | Accepted answer

被 + verb = passive form

根除 = eradicate

被根除 = be eradicated

Some verbs have active form with passive meaning. 根除 is one of them. So it's fine to remove 被 from this sentence.

(These verbs are very similar to [ergative verbs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergative_verb) in English but mainstream Chinese grammar doesn't interpret them as ergative verbs.)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: That "active form with passive meaning" part doesn't sound confusing at all! :)  
> **username_3**: @username_0, I should've used some examples in English, like 'sell' in 'The book sells good' is an active form with passive meaning. :)  
> **username_0**: Well, that makes sense now. Is there a fixed number of Chinese verbs which can have this form with 被, or you can "convert" any verb that fits the sentence?  
> **username_4**: @NS.X. I prefer to think of this as an example of an ergative verb. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ergative_verb There are many ergative verbs in Chinese, just like in English. Another example would be 打敗 (to defeat someone, or to lose).  
> **username_3**: @JamesJiao, I believe you're right. I don't know the terminologies very well :)  
> **username_3**: @username_0, I think there are a lot of them and I am not aware of any 'rules' for quick memorization.  
> **username_3**: @JamesJiao Found a thesis on this very subject. http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2002_3_06_1607.pdf  
> **username_4**: @username_0 I am not sure what your native language's rule on passivization is, but as a general rule, any transitive verbs can be passivized with 被 in Chinese similar to the 'to be + past participle' structure in English. So a list wouldn't make any sense here, as transitive verbs are usually productive (as in new verbs can be created and put in use).  
> **username_0**: @JamesJiao / NS.X: Thanks for this, the English examples are quite helpful, I think I understand the general theme here. Grammar is not my strong suit, I just kind of intuit my way through languages, so hopefully I'll get a chance to pracise this some day.  
> **username_5**: @username_0 Why is "to be eradicated" being in the passive confusing at all? I appreciate learning about different classes of verbs and all, but this seems like a really simple case of passive. `被V` = `to be Ved`  
> **username_0**: @username_5: I...really don't know how to answer that question. Why is _anything_ confusing when you're learning? A double slit experiment is a simple case of showing wave-particle duality, so why is it so confusing?  
> **username_5**: @username_0 Point taken. Just saying, this is, I think, a normal example of the passive voice.  
> **username_0**: @username_5: Normally, I'd agree with you, but I think it was the sentence structure which confused me. I simply haven't seen anything like that in my native language.. I'm sure I'll be thinking the same thing as you some day, but you gotta think of us noobs :)  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2012-08-11. Score: 3

被 is the passive voice. It is the "was" in "the disease was eradicated.

But it is not the usual "was" in the sense of 是, which is a "state" verb.

Instead, the implication of 被 is, "was done."


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2013-06-01. Score: 0

It is OK to remove the "被”; we use both versions in daily life. If you add "被", you emphasize the passive form, and in this sentence, this kind of "passive form" can be omitted because the meaning of this sentence will not change if you omit the "被".

I think this is different from English. English is used to emphasize the relationship of object by grammar, but Chinese is used to emphasize relation by meaning. And in this sentence "病" was cured, it is "passive form", even you don't add "被", everyone knows "病是被动的", so you can omit it.

If you add "被", it is very very correct, but if you do not add "被"，no one can say that is wrong.


---

