The subject of the verb "to entitle" is that which grants entitlement. The recipient is the object. I think we can legitimately read the sentence as passive.

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.

Isn't the subject you, the verb "to be" (are) - and the reminder a describing clause?

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"

"Quickly" modifies the verb, "a good boy" is a noun 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.

Was that the wrong link? I was excited that someone had done the digging in language log to find a post that clarifies (I'd bet there's a few), but that one doesn't seem relevant.

It seems to be relevant in that it describes how the common formation of adjectival phrases in English (from which these new transitive formations discussed in the Language Log are a deviation) is based on adjective + prepositional phrase, and our subject sentence follows that pattern - "entitled" is being used as an adjective, and "to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year" is a prepositional phrase.

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 :)

It's maybe obliquely relevant, but I don't think it actually clears up any of the questions at hand.

> "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".

>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.

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.

So—if I am entitled, what is doing the entitling? You rewrote the word as active which I guess is a valid point but a complete departure from conversation and not at all in good faith, my friend.

I think you might have misread my post (?) I was just giving an example of an active voice sentence with 'entitle'. There is nothing special about 'entitle' that makes it difficult to identify what the grammatical subject of the sentence is.

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".

If you are genuinely entitled, you are probably entitled by law, by convention, by the terms of some contract. There's some framework, and some reason within it, that you are owed the thing.

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.

> "to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year" is a prepositional phrase.

It's an infinitival clause ('to' is not a preposition here).

I've been reading "jump pay" as a compound noun.

Oh, I see.

"are" in the concluding sentence of thread parent is equivalent to "are being" in your concluding sentence. "granted" is equivalent to "entitled". In a passive-voice sentence like this, the object of the verb is made to seem like the subject, but the object it remains.