In order to turn a sentence into passive, we have to invariably add/use one of the forms (inflections) of ‘be’. Can’t we, then, call them (be, being, been, is, are, am, was, were) the PASSIVIZERS?
I assume this is a little joke. Am I right?
No, Alan. I am really serious. You may examine again what I have posted. Don’t we bring in a form of ‘be’ while changing a transitively-used verb into passive?
For instance:
He writes novels > Novels are written by him.
He is writing a novel now > A novel is being written by him now.
He has already written three novels > Three novels have already been written by him.
He wrote a good novel last year > A good novel was written by him last year.
He may write a novel again after two years > A novel may be written by him again after two years.
There is clearly no doubt that the passive is formed with the different parts of the verb ‘be’ but I am referring to the name you have given to these forms.
What causes a verb to become passive, or what makes a verb passive is the particular form of the verb ‘be’; hence the name.
Passivization is another function of the verb ‘be’, so to speak.
I would go for “passifiers” if I were to make up a word for them.
Really, Tort? Doesn’t that sound too much like something a baby would use to your ‘Americanised’ ears? (‘Pacifier’, equivalent to British ‘dummy’)
‘Passivise/passivize’ is legitimate usage,
oxforddictionaries.com/definitio … /passivize
so I guess ‘passivizers’ is logical.
Hi Bev,
That crossed my mind. Hehe. (on “The Simpsons” they sometimes use that word, and I remembered it)
Ok, that settles it, then! They shall be called “passivizers”.
PS: it’s always tickled my fancy how you are largely cognizant of American expressions and Americans - of yours, and at the same time you don’t cross the line and avoid using American expressions and vice versa. 
I’m familiar with many of them because the strong division which some of the forum’s members see as existing between the two forms is really not that great (I realise that you know that, but I’m thinking of some of the messages of other people). It’s not really a case of not crossing the line… more like sticking with what you’re used to.
Thank you. I have used the term ‘PASSIVISERS’ in print and been using it in classes, as well, for long. A foreign learner of English (especially an Indian) finds it easier to understand how a sentence is passivised.
As long as they realise it’s not a standard expression in BrE/AmE. (Though passivize, passivized, passizization, etc. are used)
Hi THL,
I am sure that your motives are of the best but I would have thought that this description of the various forms of the verb ‘be’ could be very confusing when you consider how else they are used.
Alan
OK Alan, thank you.
Language, as we were taught, is a living organism. Assigning logical meanings capable of convincing the discerning learners is, most usually, appreciated in India. I use this term as a tool to explain and exemplify when a student needs to know how to passivise a verb or a sentence. Nevertheless I always mention that this term has not been seen used by any grammarian I have read so far.
Bev, let’s hope that this term (like prepone) also finds its place in some lexicon, at some time, in future.
I am glad that my post has yielded your constructive response. Thanks again.