Owen—Relations Expressed by the Passive Voice. 141 
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION OF BEING-DONE 
VERSUS DOING 
The illusory conception of a passive “being-done/’ distin¬ 
guished in imagination from the active “doing/’ is the root 
of so much evil in linguistic study, that perhaps it merits a 
more serious examination that was given it on pp. 1-2. 
As this conception hardly can have tricked the mind of any¬ 
one more absolutely than my own, I can appreciate its plausi¬ 
bility. To illustrate, it would doubtless commonly be held that 
being-eaten is distinctly less agreeable than eating. Assuming 
properly enough that what is less agreeable is different from 
what is more so, I might readily conclude that being-eaten can¬ 
not be the same as eating. 
Such conclusions are, however, dangerous unless more care 
is used in forming them. For instance, given “Brown is fond 
of salt” and “Jones objects to sodium chloride,” difference in 
the tastes of different persons does not demonstrate a difference 
between the substance liked by one and that disliked by the 
other. Now “Eating (1) is agreeable” may be the verdict of 
the eater. “Eating (2) is disagreeable” may voice the dis¬ 
approval of the victim. The difference between “agreeable” 
and “disagreeable” does not then require me to differentiate 
whatever may be meant by “Eating (2) (or “Being-eaten,” 
which might take its place) from what presumably is meant by 
“Eating” (1). 
Suppose however “Eating (^T) is agreeable” and “Eating (2) 
is disagreeable” to be intended both as the opinions of one per¬ 
son—say myself. You do not necessarily suppose a contradic¬ 
tion. You may properly imagine that by “Eating (1)” I meau 
my eating something, while in saying “Eating (2)” I think 
of something’s eating me. That is, the difference between oc¬ 
currences respectively announced by “Eating (1)” and “Eat- 
ing (2)” may be a difference only in the implications of par¬ 
ticipants in eating—not at all in the specific actions in which' 
