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 / 5
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 / 5
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 / 5
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 / 5
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.