Difference between intransitive and passive?


I was thinking about Japanese passive and made the following example

壊すー>壊される which means to be broken

But looking at the English definition of "to be broken", isn't there another
Japanese word for that being, 壊れる？ How are these two different in meaning and
use, and are the differences the same in all verbs that can act like that, e.g
汚される and 汚れる？

Thanks!




There certainly is a difference in nuance between the intransitive and passive
voice in Japanese.

Intransitive: 「テレビが[壊]{こわ}れた。」 = "(My) TV broke down."

Passive Voice: 「テレビが[壊]{こわ}された。」 = "(My) TV was broken down."

「テレビが壊れた。」 would usually be said when there is no one to blame for the
incident. The TV just went out of order by itself.

「テレビが壊された。」 （Please note that we also say 「テレビ[を]壊された。」 though I will not
explain the difference here.） would be said only when there is a person or
phenomenon that is responsible for the breakdown.

When Japanese-speakers use the passive voice describing a negative event or
situation, there is almost always a sense of damage or nuisance expressed (or
at least implied) with it. When using the intransitive verb, in comparison, we
are usually just stating a cold fact without expressing or implying any
feelings.

The exact same can be said about [汚]{よご}される and 汚れる. I naturally have not
considered all verbs but I would say that what I have stated should be valid
with at least most verbs.




There certainly is a difference in nuance between the intransitive and passive
voice in Japanese.

Intransitive: 「テレビが[壊]{こわ}れた。」 = "(My) TV broke down."

Passive Voice: 「テレビが[壊]{こわ}された。」 = "(My) TV was broken down."

「テレビが壊れた。」 would usually be said when there is no one to blame for the
incident. The TV just went out of order by itself.

「テレビが壊された。」 （Please note that we also say 「テレビ[を]壊された。」 though I will not
explain the difference here.） would be said only when there is a person or
phenomenon that is responsible for the breakdown.

When Japanese-speakers use the passive voice describing a negative event or
situation, there is almost always a sense of damage or nuisance expressed (or
at least implied) with it. When using the intransitive verb, in comparison, we
are usually just stating a cold fact without expressing or implying any
feelings.

The exact same can be said about [汚]{よご}される and 汚れる. I naturally have not
considered all verbs but I would say that what I have stated should be valid
with at least most verbs.

