1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
NikAS [45]
3 years ago
8

Can anyone help me? Identify whether the sentence below is active, can be rewritten in active voice, or cannot be rewritten.

History
2 answers:
Stells [14]3 years ago
8 0
I don't think it can be written again
Sindrei [870]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

The sentence is written in the <em>passive voice</em> and <em>it can be rewritten in the active voice</em>.

Explanation:

Sentences in <em>passive voice</em> are used when we want to put emphasis on the action and the object of that segment instead of the subject. It implies that the subject is whether irrelevant or that we are not interested in knowing who it is.  Passive voice sentences follow this structure:

<u><em>Auxiliary verb + past participle</em></u>

In the example:  

<em>* The findings of the study will be published in Scientific Journal next month. </em>

"<em>The findings of the study</em>" acts as the subject of the sentence while "<em>will be published</em>" is the verb.  

On the other hand, active voice sentences are used when a subject does an action to an object. We could rewrite our example in an active voice like follows:  

<em>* Someone will publish the findings of the study in Scientific Journal next month. </em>

In this case "<em>Someone</em>" is the subject in the sentence; the verb is "<em>will publish</em>"; and the object becomes "<em>the findings of the study</em>".

You might be interested in
Which leader served as the first female governor of Texas in 1924?
Ronch [10]
Miriam A. Ferguson is the answer.
8 0
3 years ago
I NEED HELPPPPPPP ANYONE WILL HELP Me?
nekit [7.7K]

Answer:

Explanation:

What's ur question?

4 0
3 years ago
What is the moral dilemma that the author faces in “Diary 33” from The Freedom Writers Diary by Erin Gruwell and the Freedom Wri
Ne4ueva [31]
"Diary 33" has a confident and righteous tone. This tone helps the reader understand the personality or the voice of the author: she knows exactly what she's going to do and nothing is going to stop her. When she sees the little girl and the mother, her certainty is shaken. The tone also changes, becoming more unsure and less confident, which makes the reader aware of her moral dilemma. The imagery of the little girl and the crying mother helps the reader see how emotional the moral dilemma is for the author. In "Diary 24," the voice is informal and honest, which encourages the reader to trust the author. The tone ranges from sarcastic to frustrated, and the author addresses the audience as his equal.
Mark my answer as brainlist please if correct if not anyways have a blessed day!!

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
I understand you were never a slave but what connection do you have to these former slaves that makes you understand why they ca
KatRina [158]

Answer:

i could not understand.

Explanation:

i could not understand.

6 0
3 years ago
HELP
torisob [31]

Answer:

At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.  

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.

What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.

There is a lot of truth in this summary, but it is also simplistic. There is no doubt that Native Americans suffered enormously at the hands of white Americans, but federal Indian policy was shaped as much by paternalism, however misguided, as by white greed. Nor were Indians simply passive victims of white Americans’ actions. Their responses to federal policies, white Americans’ actions and the fundamental economic, social and political changes of the twentieth century were varied and divisive. These tensions and cross-currents are clearly evident in the history of the Indian New Deal and the policy of termination that replaced it in the late 1940s and 1950s. Native American history in the mid-twentieth century was much more than a simple story of good and evil, and it raises important questions (still unanswered today) about the status of Native Americans in modern US society.

Explanation:

Plz give me brainliest worked hard

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Use the following information about Earth and its moon to determine the distance between them. 4.6 × 106 m 3.8 × 108 m 3.9 × 101
    6·2 answers
  • Is cuba the only communist country in the western hemisphere?
    7·1 answer
  • Why was Darwin theory controversial in the 1800s
    5·2 answers
  • Why did have to flee to the American colonies?
    8·2 answers
  • How did the "Doctrine of Discovery" impact indigenous peoples?
    8·1 answer
  • How did the Treaty of Amity and Commerce impact the Revolutionary<br> War?
    10·1 answer
  • Who led the communists in China?
    5·1 answer
  • The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 were agreements that centered on the legality of in new western states. A sla
    8·2 answers
  • What contrast can be made between the golden age of cooperation and the Reconquista?
    8·2 answers
  • Who's H.H. Holmes?<br><br> Was he a serial killer?<br><br> ....
    15·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!