I understand the use and structure of a noun modifier using standard masu
plain past form, eg たなかさんが かったすしは、... etc. etc. The sushi that Tanaka
bought... etc. Now it's noun modifier with subject ga, masu verb in plain
past, modifying the noun, sushi.

I get that in passive it's the object that's being highlighted, that now forms
the subject. And I get direct and indirect passive sentences. No worries.

But what are the rules for using passive to modify a noun and why and when is
it preferred over plain masu form?

  1. わたしが たべた Pizzaは きのうのばん ともだちに つかいました。 ok all good.

  2. たべられた Pizza は おいしかったです。/ or should I use a noun to finish sentence, よくham and pineapple です、

I am not really understanding why No2 in passive, is wrong.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2017-07-17T06:07:33.753
50443
2023-06-22T00:02:55.303
2022-01-27T20:39:57.390
30454
19395
question
grammar
passive in noun modifier
It's not about logic, but is more to do with the availability of other
expressions.

> **1** わたしが たべた ピザは おいしかったです。  
>  **2** たべられた ピザは おいしかったです。

The #1 straightforwardly makes sense.  
The #2 is hard to process what it's saying. :) When you want to say an unusual
thing and express the pizza as something being eaten, we would try to make it
clearer and say something like

> **3** わたしに たべられてしまった ピザは おいしかったです。

But again, this is an unusual thing to say.

When you want to say 'a pizza that you were **_able to_** eat,' this could be:

> **4** （やっと）わたしが ありつけた ピザは （それでも）おいしかったです,

In other words, we usually want more expressions, modifiers, adverbs in the
sentence. However, if you say わたしに instead of わたしが, it becomes more natural
even without additional modifiers:

> **5** わたしに たべられた ピザは おいしかったです。

In this way, it can naturally sound like talking about what you've been
**_able to_** eat than what has been eaten by you. The reason could be your
health condition.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-17T16:22:25.110
50464
2017-07-17T16:22:25.110
22422
50443
answer
(1) There are no explicit 'rules' in any language for when to use active and
passive. You can express a range of concepts using either, or both. Consider
the sentences:

"Stephen King wrote that book".  
"That book was written by Stephen King".

There is no semantic difference there, only a stylistic one (if any). Both
sentences are grammatically correct and neither one is better than the other.
There are no specific rules which dictate whether you should use one or the
other. The same is true for Japanese.

(2) Modifying a noun with the passive form depends on what the speaker is
trying to express. When the need to use it arises, then it should be used. One
obvious example would be when the 'doer' of the verb is not known. In that
case it might be more difficult to construct an active sentence as it might
sound somewhat artificial. So a passive construction might sound more natural.
Maybe something like 昨日発表されたキャンペーン ("the marketing campaign which was
announced yesterday") if you don't know who actually made the announcement but
still want to talk about it.

(3) Care is needed with passive constructions, because as pointed out in other
comments, it can be confused with the potential forms - 食べられる could be passive
or potential, depending on the context and grammar.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-16T14:31:47.943
53848
2017-10-16T14:31:47.943
25875
50443
answer