I get that 見つける is transitive.
I get that 見つかる is intransitive.
I get that transitive verbs take an object and can thus be used with を particle.
I get that transitive verbs are often confused with passive voice.
I get that passive voice can drop a subject entirely.
I get that intransitive verbs can drop an object entirely.
Then I see example sentences like this:
本を見つけた
本が見つかった
本 sure looks like the object in both sentences regardless of whether it’s marked with を or が.
I can see a couple solutions to this:
1. In 本が見つかった, 本 is the subject and is involved in the finding. (Weird but fine)
2. In 本が見つかった, 本 is the object and is found. (Now this is passive voice)
Most sources translate “本が見つかった” as “The book was found”
Including native Japanese speakers: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q\_c07WPh8Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q_c07WPh8Y)
So option 2 seems both the most likely answer and the most unlikely answer.
What’s the deal? Is it option 1 or 2 or is there some flaw in my logic along the way?
It feels like there is a shell game being played where everyone understands this situation is passive voice but don’t want to call it that because “reasons”. And that intransitive verbs drop an object most of the time but can in fact drop subjects in rare circumstances when an intrinsic nature of the verb calls for it. And the clear distinction people want to draw between intransitive and passive voice isn’t so clear. To the extent that they would rather say something absurd like the book is involved in the finding than say something heretical like 本 is the object.
6 comments
My thoughts…
* 本を見つけた – “I found the book”. Here the unstated subject is ‘I’ (by default) and ‘I’ am doing the finding of the book (object) – so transitive verb used.
* 本が見つかった – “The book was found”. Here book is the subject (が marked) that is involved in the action of having been found. No one specific is mentioned as being involved in finding it, all we know is that it was found – so the intransitive verb is used.
~~I think it can be interpreted using option 1 or 2. Whatever you’re most comfortable with I guess.~~
I’ve changed my mind (I didn’t read your 1 & 2 options right). I think 1 is wrong because the subject isn’t doing the finding. But the book can still be interpreted as the subject. Option 2 is probably a more comfortable option for native English speakers.
The second sentence you gave is only passive in English and only in this particular sentence. I could say something like 映画が始まる (the movie starts) and it wouldn’t be passive, even though the verb is intransitive (and ‘movie’ is clearly not an object). I might be mistaken, but people probably want to avoid such confusion caused by applying English grammar terms to Japanese. Not to mention that Japanese already has passive verb form and it has nothing to do with transitivity.
>the clear distinction people want to draw between intransitive and passive voice isn’t so clear.
It’s clear in Japanese, it’s just not always clear in the English translation because languages don’t map 1:1. Just because Japanese distinguishes between intransitive and passive versions for a certain verb does not mean that the corresponding English translation does the same.
In some cases English makes a distinction, too, for example “the movie had started” (= state) vs. “the movie was started (by someone)” (= passive). Or “the store was open” (= state) vs. “the store was opened (by someone)” (= passive). But for the verb “to find” English does not distinguish the same way. You would say “the book was found” in both cases.
Just think of it like “The book turned up.”
Do you also blow this much of a fuse when someone says “It sells like hot cakes” in English?
It’s not grammatically a passive verb, but it is translated to a passive verb in English, because English doesn’t have a verb meaning the same thing.
EDIT: Someone else mentioned “turn up”. Think of it like that.