https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/p...
But a passive sentence is one where the subject is absent - but in this sentence, the subject is 'you'. 'Entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year' is an adjectival phrase. The sentence makes an active statement about the recipient:
You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year.
is no more passive than
You are a fine soldier.
A passive version of this sentence would be more like
You are being granted jump pay for the time you spent in training last year.
Active; "applicable regulations" are doing something:
"Applicable regulations entitle you to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year."
Passive; "applicable regulations" are still doing something:
"You are entitled by applicable regulations to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year."
Still passive; vague about what's doing something:
"You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year."
As you point out, "entitled" is often used as an adjective. I think you're right that the sentence can be read that way, and in that case it is indeed active.
After consideration, I think the passive read is more correct, but I can't yet put my finger on why.
You run quickly.
You are a good boy.
You are entitled to receive praise.
?
Ed: but "you qualify for pay" might be better active voice here?
Ed2: I see jameshart made a similar point more eloquently about "adjectival phrase"
"You are smart" is a better analogue, clearly active voice. "You are hit" is another analogue, clearly passive.
I still believe that we can read the original sentence in the latter way - with "entitled" a verb used passively. I remain unsure as to whether we can read it the other way - with "entitled" as adjective.
You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year
You are familiar with this aircraft
Nobody would argue that that second sentence is a 'passive sentence', and it consists - in this analysis - of exactly the same grammatical elements.
But this all just comes down to the fact that 'to be' is a weird verb and it screws with a lot of grammatical assumptions; that the way participial adjectives are used blurs the question of what is the 'verb' in a sentence, and even that the verb 'to entitle' is a strange one in that it is often tricky to pin down what would be the subject of an active sentence using entitle as a verb.
I think we can all agree that it's basically a terrible choice of a sentence if you want to provide a clear example of how to favor the active voice in writing :)
> "entitled" is being used as an adjective
But... I think that's always kinda what's going on with the passive? I can call someone entitled (although it usually takes a different connotation), but I can also call something "thrown" (eg. "The thrown ball strikes the catcher's mitt."). I think it's nonetheless uncontroversial that "the ball was thrown" is passive voice.
FWIW, checking a couple dictionaries (MW and AHD, chosen for being freely searchable online rather than quality) both list "entitle" as a transitive verb and seem (harder to be sure of with the interface) to omit separate mention of "entitled".
It isn't difficult at all. E.g. in "This coupon entitles them to cheese", "this coupon" is clearly the subject. You may be thinking about thematic structure more than grammatical relations.
My post was in response to the claim that "it is often tricky to pin down what would be the subject of an active sentence using entitle as a verb".
We also seem to use "entitled" to mean that someone thinks they are owed things when they aren't - you often find this in rants about individual jerks or millennials in general. There's no subject to be had in that use because the entire point is that it is not legitimate.
I think the latter sense is always an adjective. The former sense clearly can be a transitive verb, and I have not found a seemingly grammatical utterance that can't be described that way (I think - IANALinguist). The fact that the subject can be left unspecified is a feature of the passive construction in general, and an often-stated motivation for some of the criticism it receives.
It's an infinitival clause ('to' is not a preposition here).
"The time you spent in training last year entitles you to jump pay [for that time]."
Although style guides like this one usually advise against using passive voice because it makes things harder to read, clarity should be the goal, not just active voice. This is a good example of a reason you might prefer passive voice: because the verb's subject isn't the focus. Passive voice can also be clearer than active voice when there's no relevant or meaningful actor to use as the subject.
Honestly, though, this is a case where the usual purpose of active voice rules (to avoid deenohasizing or obscuring responsibility) is not actually frustrated even though the sample is in passive voice so while I wouldn't use it as an example of active voice I wouldn't necessarily avoid it even given an avoid-passive-voice guideline. (And I've reviewed documents under publication manuals with such guidelines.)
Your suggested improvement is in the active voice, but it’s still wordy. Using can weakens a statement, so look to eliminate this worthless verb. Prefer will or in this case get to the point with “Claim jump pay on Form DDXXXX for the time …”
> Army writing will be concise, organized, and to the point. Two essential requirements include putting the main point at the beginning of the correspondence (bottom line up front) and using the active voice (for example, “You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year”).