In Changing China, Being 'Suicided' or 'Harmonized'
npr.org
npr.org
I had to read up on the English concept of active- versus passive-voice. For example:
The cat ate the mouse.
The mouse was eaten by the cat
So in the case of "He was disappeared", the point is that you are implying that he did not make himself disappear, but that it was done to them.
However, in Chinese, the language is so flexible that there are many far more common ways to express the same concept. So when someone specifically uses the passive voice in this way, while it is grammatically correct (or at least, is a grammatical invention that follows existing rules), it is obvious to other Chinese-speakers that it's an unusual way to say something.
The examples given start making more sense when you forget about the fact that "suicided" isn't a real word. It's not supposed to be a real word, instead it is meany to be a translation into English that preserves the 'strangeness' of the phrase.
In the case of the Chinese, use of the passive voice in this way is kind of like a shibboleth in that someone who agrees with your politics will know what you really mean, but you still have plausible deniability for those that don't.
In Chinese in the most recent century, mistranslation of Western writings with passive voice constructions by the 被 construction (whether or not the Western passive constructions have an adversative meaning) tempts a lot of casual observers to suppose that today's Chinese uses 被 simply as a marker of passive voice. But I have many times tried out, as part of personal linguistic fieldwork, newly composed sentences that use 被 as a straight-up translation of normally grammatical sentences in English, and the Chinese sentences are regarded as ungrammatical unless the 被 construction can plausibly be construed as adversative.
(I just Googled for a good Web reference about this, but didn't find one quite to my satisfaction.)
For example:
The article has been finished. 文章寫好了.
The meeting has been postponed until Monday. 會議延到星期一舉行.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_voice#Adversative_passi...
(it happens to inaccurate in respect to Japanese, since the mentioned indirect passive is not always adversative)
The passive voice means that you don't actually have to put in the person/thing doing the action, and the sentence will be gramatically correct and complete.
See these examples:
Active: The burgler robbed the bank. Passive: The bank was robbed by the burgler. Passive - doing person: The bank was robbed. Note: You can't do this with the active voice, unless you say "someone robbed the bank".
Active: I ate the cake. Passive: The cake was eaten by me. Passive - doing person: The cake was eaten.
I hope this makes sense?
It doesn't make sense. It isn't even good grammar. What the hell does it mean to disappear somebody?
This point is almost missed, Latin and latter English are the previous languages where this happened. Most of the time other languages adopted and sometime slightly localized the Latin or English word or expression. Being the language that ideas are expressed in is a powerful statement in the ownership of thought. With China's ascension, I am sure that new technology conceive of in China will bare their trademark on thought.