I think this construction is, in fact, using a past participle. Further, because it uses a past participle it is definitely passive voice (which I believe is a different conclusion than you were expecting!) Here is a well written example from UNC at Chapel Hill:
Once you know what to look for, passive constructions are easy to
spot. Look for a form of “to be” (is, are, am , was, were, has been,
have been, had been, will be, will have been, being) followed by a
past participle. (The past participle is a form of the verb that
typically, but not always, ends in “-ed.” Some exceptions to the “-ed”
rule are words like “paid” (not “payed”) and “driven.” (not “drived”).
Here’s a sure-fire formula for identifying the passive voice:
form
of “to be” + past participle = passive voice
For example:
The
metropolis has been scorched by the dragon’s fiery breath.
When her
house was invaded, Penelope had to think of ways to delay her
remarriage.
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/passive-voice/
While this quotation works very well with modern English, it is possible to come across "be" with a past participle of intransitive verbs, this reflects an older construction in which it was possible to make the present perfect with "be", rather than "have". Remnants of this construction exist today and are exceptions to the rule claimed by this quotation. Intransitive verbs cannot be passive voice.
By the way you may want to review this entire document as it's very on-point with the rules of use of passive voice in writing, at least as taught by a typical American university.
As to the second part of your question, yes, the use of "there" as the subject makes this sentence an existential sentence. So this is a passive, existential sentence as you suspected (but perhaps for slightly different reasons than you expected).
No comments:
Post a Comment