brahmtewatia
Active member
I agree......................................................I am agreed.
Evidently the passive voice form denotes a state while the active, the action. The subject in the active voice is responsible for the action suggested by the verb there, while the subject in the passive voice does no such thing.
i have given my explanation on what i think on this query (refer post # 176 http://www.jatland.com/forums/showpost.php?p=186156&postcount=176)
after googling on this... i found the following replies:
Maybe "I am agreed" is more of a direct German translation, I'm not sure -- something like "How goes it?", which can be understood but isn't really standard in modern English. We are agreed or I am agreed sounds vaguely legalese to me, though, like agreeing to terms of a contract, notice or such.
i welcome further suggestions !!!However, in Latin languages, "agree" is an adjective, not a verb. French would say "je suis d'accord", Italians "sono d'accordo" and Spanish speakers "estoy de acuerdo". They translate as "I am in agreement (with you)", and thus, lots of speakers of Latin languages would mistakenly say "I am agree(d)" instead of "I agree". I guess the large number of Latin languages speakers in the USA (Spanish-speakers in the South-West, Italians in NEW York, Chicago, etc., French-speakers in Louisiana or Vermont + all mixed immigrant from Europe or Latin America) explains how Americans have come to use "I am agreed".
I read that Americans have seen their grammar simplified because of the huge number of non-native English-speaker immigrants, that couldn't cope with the subtilities of the present perfect, for instance. That's also why Americans have developed simplified spellings such as "nite" for "night", "lite" for "light" or "thru" for "through", though the original spelling is still considered better - more formal.