The first phrase could have been:
He's been putting up with it, his whole life.
You put up with something that is annoying, irritating, or painful. For instance, he may suffer from severe backache but because there is no cure, and the doctors cannot help him, he has no choice but to put up with the pain.
Now, why anyone would put this type of sentence in the passive voice is quite beyond me. The agent, the man, is not performing an action on his back, rather it his back that is inflicting an action.
The original phrase is however:
He has been putting it up his whole life
the passive voice equivalent is:
It has been being put up his whole life
But it sounds awkward, clumsy, unnatural and confusing. The present perfect continuous tense is rarely used in the passive voice. Compare the following phrases
- Active 1) He wrote two books about Moriarty.
Passive 1) Two books about Moriarty were written by him.
A 2) He has written two books about Moriarty.
P 2) Two books about Moriarty have been written by him.
A 3) He has been writing a book about Moriarty all his life.
- P 3) A book about Moriarty has been being written by him all his life.
P 3 Sounds confusing, despite it being grammatically correct. No one speaks like that and I doubt there are many examples of this type of passive construction in literature or in any type of journals (at least I hope not!)
For sentence number 2 it is exactly as @relaxing stated in his answer. The correct form is:
It used to be said in similar situations
Compare
The BBC has an article on the passive voice construction using the present perfect continuous
Generally, we avoid using the continuous form of the passive with the
future, present perfect, past perfect and future perfect, although
present continuous and past continuous are quite common and sound
quite natural in the passive voice.
PASSIVE
Simple Continuous
Present: It is cleaned... It is being cleaned...
Past: It was cleaned.. It was being cleaned
Future: It will be cleaned... xxxx xxxx xxxx
Present Perfect: It has been cleaned... xxxx xxxx xxxx
Past Perfect: It had been cleaned... xxxx xxxx xxxx
Future Perfect: It will have been cleaned xxxx xxxx xxxx
Study these further examples of use and note how we avoid using the
continuous form of the passive in the final four tenses listed:
Passive constructions in the present simple tense can refer to a particular time or situation:
I am bored by him. (Can mean "at the moment".)
She is alleged to be cheating on her husband.
And CNN is now calling it: Barack Obama is elected president this historic day.
Ten minutes into the film, the main character is hit by a train.
It is more common to see such constructions used to describe things that happen regularly or are general truths:
They are awakened every morning by the garbage truck.
Tomatoes are picked while still green and quite firm.
There is often confusion between passive constructions containing a verb in past participle form, and a statement where such words function as adjectives. We sometimes need to rely on context to determine which is the case. Sometimes it is impossible to make such a determination from the available information, or the line is too fuzzy to be drawn with certainty.
Active construction (subject + verb + adjective [complement]):
The store is closed. We arrived too late.
Passive construction:
The store is normally closed by the assistant manager.
Should I use the present continuous with a passive form to mean that the status (being insured) is currently permanent, but will change later?
To say that something is insured for a year is unclear to begin with. Does that mean that it was originally insured for a period of one year, and it does not matter when that happened and when it will expire? I think that in almost any context, we would want to communicate when the term began and/or when it will end. Also, the wording Professional liability of a specialist is not idiomatic in most contexts.
If we want to say something like
The specialist's professional liability is insured with ABC Insurance Co., for a term of one year.
We could not use the present continuous tense because that would suggest that the activity of being/becoming insured is occurring as a process at the time of speaking.
For the second question, a correct version of that utterance is
In the report, the supervisor particularly notes that a number of serious errors have not been corrected by a worker, despite previous warnings by management.
We would usually avoid using "are not being corrected" because that could mean that an act of correcting is not occurring at the moment. However, it could also mean that the lack of correction is persisting over a period of time. Most good writers would avoid the present continuous without making clear which of those senses they wanted to denote.
Best Answer
All of your options are grammatically correct. (b) and (c) are awkward. We usually use a passive voice when we don't want to specify who is doing the action, perhaps because we want to downplay who it is, or we don't know who it is, or because we want to emphasize the action over the actor.
In this example, we might say "their conversation was being recorded" because the speaker doesn't know who did the recording, or because it doesn't matter, the point is just that someone did.
"It was not realized by the goons" is awkward because the sentence goes out of its way to use a passive voice and thus de-emphasize the actor ... and then it specifies the actor.
(a) is a perfectly good and reasonable sentence. It would be better still if instead of saying "someone" you said who it was. Like, "The goons did not realize that the FBI was recording their conversation."
"I knew that in voice change for complex sentence, we need to change voice for both part in the sentence." Not necessarily true. It's perfectly reasonable for a sentence to have one part in active void and another in passive voice. The original sentence does this: "the goons did not realize", active voice, "that their conversation was being recorded", passive voice.
Another variation that occurs to me is, "It was not realized that the FBI was recording the goons' conversation." Now we know who did the recording, but we no longer know who failed to realize.