Which sentence uses an ergative verb correctly in a monitoring alert description?
Option C is correct. An ergative verb is one that can be used both transitively (with an object: "X started the pipeline") and intransitively (without an agent: "the pipeline started"). In monitoring and observability writing, the intransitive ergative form "the pipeline started" is preferred when the thing that changed state is more important than who triggered it. This reduces agent clutter and keeps alerts focused on system state. Options A and D are passive, which is acceptable but wordy. Option B (transitive) is fine in runbooks where the agent matters, but Option C is tighter for alert messages.
2 / 19
A log analysis report reads: "At 03:17, the worker process __ unexpectedly, causing a queue backup." Which ergative verb fits best?
Option C is correct. "Stopped" is a prototypical ergative verb in IT contexts: "the process stopped" (intransitive, no agent) vs "the scheduler stopped the process" (transitive, with agent). The word "unexpectedly" signals an unintended state change, making the agentless ergative form ideal — it focuses on the system event rather than attributing blame. "Ran" is not typically ergative in this sense. "Executed" is almost always transitive in technical English ("the server executed the script"). "Started" would contradict "unexpectedly causing a backup" in context.
3 / 19
Identify the sentence where the ergative verb use is incorrect or unnatural in technical documentation.
Option C is the awkward one. While "opened" can be ergative ("the connection opened"), writing "the server opened the connection" is transitive — perfectly grammatical, but it implies the server was the active agent initiating the connection. In most TLS/TCP documentation, the connection is described as a shared event: "the connection was established" or "the connection opened" (ergative). The phrasing in Option C is not wrong, but it is the least natural ergative usage. Options A, B, and D all use classic ergative patterns: query ran, build failed, container restarted — all focus on the system object, not the agent.
4 / 19
A developer writes a README note: "If the migration script __ with exit code 1, roll back the changes manually." Which verb is most idiomatic?
Option A is correct. "Exits" uses the ergative-style simple present in a zero-conditional ("if X happens, do Y"). In technical procedures, the simple present is the canonical tense for conditional triggers, and "exit" is an ergative verb here — the script exits (state change, no separate agent needed). "Is exiting" (progressive) implies the action is in progress, not a discrete trigger. "Will exit" introduces unnecessary future uncertainty. "Has been exited" is passive and unnatural — you cannot "exit" a script the way you can exit a process from outside. The ergative intransitive "the script exits" is the clean, standard form.
5 / 19
Why do technical writers prefer ergative constructions like "the server crashed" over "the server was crashed" or "something caused the server to crash"?
Option B is correct. The core value of ergative constructions in IT writing is that they foreground the system event while backgrounding (or omitting) the agent. In monitoring dashboards, alerts, and status pages, the cause is often unknown at the time of writing. "The server crashed" is accurate and actionable regardless of whether the cause is a memory leak, a kernel bug, or a network partition. "Was crashed" is grammatically valid but implies external action rather than an internal state change. "Something caused the server to crash" is verbose and adds no information. Ergative verbs match the reality of distributed systems: components change state, often without a single identifiable agent.
6 / 19
Sarah, the DevOps engineer, posted this comment on a code review:
"The service processed the request. It's crucial we track if it fails."
The verb 'processed' here correctly employs an ergative construction. It highlights that *the service* is actively performing the action of processing, emphasizing its responsibility. 'Handled' or 'executed' are passive and wouldn't clearly indicate the service's role in this context; 'insufficient' provides a completely unrelated distraction.
7 / 19
Mark is writing the description for a new API endpoint. He writes: "The system validated the input data against schema X.". Which of the following best explains why this phrasing is preferred?
Using 'validated' with an ergative verb construction emphasizes that *the system* actively performs the validation. This highlights the system's responsibility and proactive nature, which is a key concept in technical documentation when describing how systems function. The passive voice isn't inherently better; it obscures agency.
8 / 19
Elena is drafting the description for a new feature: 'Automated Rollback'. She writes:
"If the deployment script returns an error code, immediately roll back the changes."
'Returns' accurately describes what the script *does* when it encounters an error. The ergative verb construction emphasizes that *the script* is responsible for this action—that is, its output upon encountering a problem. 'Triggers' would imply manual intervention and doesn't align with automated rollback.
9 / 19
Sarah, the DevOps engineer, posted this comment on a code review:
"The service processed the request. It's crucial we track if it fails."
The verb 'processed' here correctly employs an ergative construction. It highlights that *the service* is actively performing the action of processing, emphasizing its responsibility. 'Handled' or 'executed' are passive and wouldn't clearly indicate the service's role in this context; 'insufficient' provides a completely unrelated distraction.
10 / 19
Mark is writing the description for a new API endpoint. He writes: "The system validated the input data against schema X.". Which of the following best explains why this phrasing is preferred?
Using 'validated' with an ergative verb construction emphasizes that *the system* actively performs the validation. This highlights the system's responsibility and proactive nature, which is a key concept in technical documentation when describing how systems function. The passive voice isn't inherently better; it obscures agency.
11 / 19
Elena is drafting the description for a new feature: 'Automated Rollback'. She writes:
"If the deployment script returns an error code, immediately roll back the changes."
'Returns' accurately describes what the script *does* when it encounters an error. The ergative verb construction emphasizes that *the script* is responsible for this action—that is, its output upon encountering a problem. 'Triggers' would imply manual intervention and doesn't align with automated rollback.
12 / 19
Sarah, the DevOps engineer, posted this comment on a code review:
"The service processed the request. It's crucial we track if it fails."
The verb 'processed' here correctly employs an ergative construction. It highlights that *the service* is actively performing the action of processing, emphasizing its responsibility. 'Handled' or 'executed' are passive and wouldn't clearly indicate the service's role in this context; 'insufficient' provides a completely unrelated distraction.
13 / 19
Mark is writing the description for a new API endpoint. He writes: "The system validated the input data against schema X.". Which of the following best explains why this phrasing is preferred?
Using 'validated' with an ergative verb construction emphasizes that *the system* actively performs the validation. This highlights the system's responsibility and proactive nature, which is a key concept in technical documentation when describing how systems function. The passive voice isn't inherently better; it obscures agency.
14 / 19
Elena is drafting the description for a new feature: 'Automated Rollback'. She writes:
"If the deployment script returns an error code, immediately roll back the changes."
'Returns' accurately describes what the script *does* when it encounters an error. The ergative verb construction emphasizes that *the script* is responsible for this action—that is, its output upon encountering a problem. 'Triggers' would imply manual intervention and doesn't align with automated rollback.
15 / 19
Mark is writing a Slack message to announce a critical service outage:
"The application *responded* to the user's request. We're investigating the root cause and expect an update in 15 minutes."
This question tests understanding of ergative verbs in a concise communication setting. Using 'responded' (the active verb) emphasizes that *the application* performed the action, aligning with the ergative construction where the subject is doing something to an object. Options A and B add unnecessary detail, while option D uses phrasing that isn't as direct.
16 / 19
Elena is drafting a Slack message to announce an unexpected service interruption: "The API *handled* the incoming requests. We're investigating the cause and will provide updates.". Which aspect of this phrasing demonstrates the use of an ergative verb?
The use of 'handled' as the main verb here is key. Ergative constructions often focus on the agent performing an action – in this case, the API actively handling requests. This contrasts with a passive construction like 'were handled,' which would place emphasis on the requests themselves rather than the API. The other options misinterpret the significance of the phrasing.
17 / 19
David is writing a code review comment for a script that automatically restarts failed services: "The service *failed* during execution." Which statement best explains why this phrasing is considered more appropriate in technical documentation than 'the service was failed'?
Using 'failed' as the active verb emphasizes the service's role in the failure. This aligns with ergative principles where the subject (the service) is the entity performing the action – in this case, experiencing a failure. 'Was failed' would be passive and less precise, obscuring the responsibility of the service. The other options are secondary reasons.
18 / 19
"Mark is creating a PR description for a new monitoring tool. He writes: 'The system *detected* the anomaly.' Which of the following best explains why this phrasing aligns with best practices in technical documentation regarding ergative verbs?
The correct answer emphasizes that 'detected' accurately reflects the system's function – actively identifying an issue. This aligns with the ergative construction where the *system* performs the action (detecting), and the focus is on the result of that action. The other options misrepresent the system's role or use less precise language.
19 / 19
"David is documenting a failed deployment rollback: 'The system *rolled back* the changes.' Why is this phrasing preferred over alternatives like 'the changes were rolled back' or 'the system initiated a rollback'?
The correct answer correctly identifies that using 'rolled back' as an ergative verb emphasizes the system's active role in performing the action. This aligns with best practices for technical documentation where the focus is on what *the system* did, rather than a passive description of the outcome. The other options are less direct and don't effectively convey the system's agency.
What will I practise in "Ergative Verbs in Technical Writing — Grammar Exercise"?
Practice using ergative verbs like starts, stops, fails, and runs correctly in monitoring alerts, runbooks, and system documentation.
How many exercises are in this module?
This module has 19 multiple-choice exercises, each with instant feedback and a full explanation of the correct answer.
Is this exercise free to use?
Yes. Every exercise on CoderSlingo, including this one, is free to use with no account, sign-up, or paywall.
Do I need to create an account to do these exercises?
No account is required. Just click an option to answer — your score for this session is tracked automatically in the progress bar above.
What happens if I choose the wrong answer?
You'll immediately see which answer was correct, plus a full explanation covering the grammar rule and reasoning behind it — mistakes are where most of the learning happens.
Can I retry the exercises if I want a higher score?
Yes — use the "Try again" button on the results screen to reset and go through all the questions again.
Is my progress saved if I close the page?
No. Progress is tracked only for your current visit; reloading or leaving the page resets the counter. This keeps the exercise simple and account-free.
Where can I find more Grammar exercises?
Browse the full Grammar hub for related drills, or check the "Next up" link below to continue with a connected topic.
How is this different from reading an article on the same topic?
Articles explain grammar rules in prose; this exercise tests and reinforces those rules through active recall with immediate feedback — the two work best together.
Who writes these exercises?
Every exercise is written by the CoderSlingo team, drawing on real workplace English used in IT roles, then reviewed for accuracy and clarity.