Talk:omit

double passive
A few double passives are defensible—e.g.: “Offerings in compliance with Regulation D are not required to be registered with the SEC under the Securities Act.” As Ernest Gowers (FMEU2 at 139) noted: “In legal or quasi-legal language this construction may sometimes unexceptionable: ''Diplomatic privilege applies only to such things as are done or omitted to be done in the course of a person’s official duties. Motion made: that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question”'' But these are of a different kind from are sought to be included and are attempted to be refuted, which can be easily remedied by recasting. The principle is that if the first passive-voice construction can be made active—leaving the passive infinitive intact—the sentence is correctly formed.

Why is the verb omit accepted when it doesn't work as said "principle", for example ACTIVE: Expect/＊omit somebody to do something into PASSIVE: Something is expected/＊omitted to be done (by somebody).

Secondly, why aren't here registered or left out adjectives instead? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)