I heard this while listening to a radio talk-show’s discussion of the former first lady’s race for the 2008 U.S. presidency.

Problem:
The verb “beat” is incorrect here.

Explanation:
The question is written in abbreviated passive voice, albeit incorrectly. The subject of the sentence (Hillary) is acted on by the verb, and we do not know who potentially is beating her. A question in active voice must identify the person who potentially will beat Hillary.

“Can Joe beat Hillary?” is an example of a question in active voice. We get “Can Hillary be beaten by Joe?” when we rearrange the question to put it into passive voice. Abbreviating this question, we correctly get “Can Hillary be beaten?” in abbreviated passive voice.

In other words, “beaten” — not “beat” — is the passive form of the verb “to beat”.

I believe that the use of “beat” instead of “beaten” when the latter is appropriate represents

• ignorance about passive voice, and
• a laziness that favors shorter, fewer-syllable words over longer words.

The one-syllable “beat” is easier than the two-syllable “beaten” to say. Throw in a common lack of understanding how sentences in the active voice are converted to sentences in the passive voice or abbreviated passive voice, and it’s no wonder that many English speakers choose “beat” (incorrectly) instead of “beaten” in a question posed in the passive voice or abbreviated passive voice.

Solution:
“Can Hillary be beaten?”