The Passive in English (2011)(languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu)
languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu
The Passive in English (2011)
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922
64 comments
I speak French and studied Latin. We have so many language oddities (and of course 'exceptions confirm the rule') that we're not so quick to judge English.
The case of 'naître' is interesting. Naître is mostly used in the past (I/he was born). The direct translation is also in French its common past form 'Je suis né', which would also be the same as a passive voice, though in the present ('I am born' but the meaning wouldn't make much sense in French).
In the end, 'I was born' appears very logical to young French students (typically 9 to 12 years old depending on school and chosen language). It's usually taught at first as idiomatic.
Follow-up question for German speakers: I was sometimes asked 'When were you born?' as 'Wann bist du geboren?' which would be a word-for-word translation of the English. Is 'Wann wurdest du geboren?' with the passive auxiliary the only really correct form?
The case of 'naître' is interesting. Naître is mostly used in the past (I/he was born). The direct translation is also in French its common past form 'Je suis né', which would also be the same as a passive voice, though in the present ('I am born' but the meaning wouldn't make much sense in French).
In the end, 'I was born' appears very logical to young French students (typically 9 to 12 years old depending on school and chosen language). It's usually taught at first as idiomatic.
Follow-up question for German speakers: I was sometimes asked 'When were you born?' as 'Wann bist du geboren?' which would be a word-for-word translation of the English. Is 'Wann wurdest du geboren?' with the passive auxiliary the only really correct form?
As a French speaker, do you feel that 'manquer' is the wrong way around (subject and object reversed)? Or does English have it backward?
It's easy enough to just flip subject and object when translating, but I never gave much thought to how it would work in the passive voice.
I tried a few examples with Google Translate, but perhaps it's even more confused than I am:
It's easy enough to just flip subject and object when translating, but I never gave much thought to how it would work in the passive voice.
I tried a few examples with Google Translate, but perhaps it's even more confused than I am:
I miss him. => Il me manque.
He misses me. => Il me manque.
I am missed by him => Il me manque.
He is missed by me. => Il me manque.I don't speak French, but in Italian you can't have intransitive passive verbs. `manque` is intransitive, `me` in not a direct object.
I'd expect French and Italian to be similar here.
I'd expect French and Italian to be similar here.
'Manquer' translates well to 'miss' when you miss the bus or a target, you're lacking something ('cette veste manque un bouton') or a quality ('il manque de courage'). Manquer has also a passive meaning (Pierre manque -> Pierre is missing) but Google's problem here is different.
>'Il me manque' = 'he's missing to me' This seems logical to me. The French 'me' in this case is a dative or 'indirect object' form.
>He's missing me (while shooting at me) = il me manque The French 'me' in this case is an accusative or 'direct object' form.
The passive voice 'Je suis manqué par lui' = 'I am missed by him' /'Il est manqué par moi' = 'He is missed by me' would be unusual in French and necessarily 'directly transitive', so referring to missing someone with a pistol for example.
The difference between the two can be made by using the 3rd person or the indirect complement. >Il me manque (I long for him) => Il lui manque (he/she misses him, the dative 'lui' being epicene) >Il me manque (He missed me, as with a pistol) => il le manque (he misses him, as with a pistol)
'Il me manque' (I long for him) can be developed into 'Il manque à moi' (he's missing to me). 'Il me manque' (he misses me while shooting at me) cannot. This intuitive trick is taught to children so they can make the difference in more complicated cases, but it doesn't work well with second language students.
>'Il me manque' = 'he's missing to me' This seems logical to me. The French 'me' in this case is a dative or 'indirect object' form.
>He's missing me (while shooting at me) = il me manque The French 'me' in this case is an accusative or 'direct object' form.
The passive voice 'Je suis manqué par lui' = 'I am missed by him' /'Il est manqué par moi' = 'He is missed by me' would be unusual in French and necessarily 'directly transitive', so referring to missing someone with a pistol for example.
The difference between the two can be made by using the 3rd person or the indirect complement. >Il me manque (I long for him) => Il lui manque (he/she misses him, the dative 'lui' being epicene) >Il me manque (He missed me, as with a pistol) => il le manque (he misses him, as with a pistol)
'Il me manque' (I long for him) can be developed into 'Il manque à moi' (he's missing to me). 'Il me manque' (he misses me while shooting at me) cannot. This intuitive trick is taught to children so they can make the difference in more complicated cases, but it doesn't work well with second language students.
Weird translations...
I miss him => Il me manque.
He misses me => Je lui manque.
Passive forms aren't used. However you may use the quite old-fashioned "languir" as an alternative form:
I am missed by him => Il se languit de moi.
He is missed by me => Je me languit de lui.
I miss him => Il me manque.
He misses me => Je lui manque.
Passive forms aren't used. However you may use the quite old-fashioned "languir" as an alternative form:
I am missed by him => Il se languit de moi.
He is missed by me => Je me languit de lui.
“Follow-up question for German speakers: I was sometimes asked 'When were you born?' as 'Wann bist du geboren?' which would be a word-for-word translation of the English. Is 'Wann wurdest du geboren?' with the passive auxiliary the only really correct form?”
Both “bist geboren” and “wurdest geboren” are in wide-spread use, some German speakers prefer the one, some the other variant – e.g. https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewGeneraldiscussion.php?idThrea... – but not under all circumstances:
- “wurdest geboren”: the passive with an auxiliary form of “werden” is called “Vorgangspassiv” ≈ ‘passive expressing an event’.
- “bist geboren”: the passive with an auxiliary form of “sein” is called “Zustandspassiv” ≈ ‘passive expressing a state’.
A minimal pair:
- “Die Tür wird geöffnet” = ‘The door is opened’.
- “Die Tür ist geöffnet” ≈ ‘The door (has been opened and) is open’ (There is also “Die Tür ist offen” = ‘The door is open’).
So “wurdest geboren” and “bist geboren” offer two different perspectives (with a difference that often doesnʼt really matter):
- “Wann wurdest du geboren?” focuses on the past event of having been born at a certain time.
- “Wann bist du geboren?” focuses on the personʼs property to be now a person that was born at a certain time (a property, in the end, like age or weight maybe).
So the latter is rather not used for dead persons: “Kant wurde 1724 geboren” is much preferred over “Kant ist 1724 geboren”.
(If students of the German language donʼt want to memorize much here, they can, as often with German, happily apply the postmodern motto “anything goes”, plus there is probably some dialect anyway in which the form you use is the right one since the middle ages :-)
Both “bist geboren” and “wurdest geboren” are in wide-spread use, some German speakers prefer the one, some the other variant – e.g. https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewGeneraldiscussion.php?idThrea... – but not under all circumstances:
- “wurdest geboren”: the passive with an auxiliary form of “werden” is called “Vorgangspassiv” ≈ ‘passive expressing an event’.
- “bist geboren”: the passive with an auxiliary form of “sein” is called “Zustandspassiv” ≈ ‘passive expressing a state’.
A minimal pair:
- “Die Tür wird geöffnet” = ‘The door is opened’.
- “Die Tür ist geöffnet” ≈ ‘The door (has been opened and) is open’ (There is also “Die Tür ist offen” = ‘The door is open’).
So “wurdest geboren” and “bist geboren” offer two different perspectives (with a difference that often doesnʼt really matter):
- “Wann wurdest du geboren?” focuses on the past event of having been born at a certain time.
- “Wann bist du geboren?” focuses on the personʼs property to be now a person that was born at a certain time (a property, in the end, like age or weight maybe).
So the latter is rather not used for dead persons: “Kant wurde 1724 geboren” is much preferred over “Kant ist 1724 geboren”.
(If students of the German language donʼt want to memorize much here, they can, as often with German, happily apply the postmodern motto “anything goes”, plus there is probably some dialect anyway in which the form you use is the right one since the middle ages :-)
> Can native speakers of a language even think they have deponent verbs without having another language to compare to?
Yes: it’s all based on the syntax of the single language in question. Latin has very distinct active and passive conjugations [0]; we know they’re active and passive because of the effect they have on the case assignations. Deponent verbs are those which cannot occur in the active conjugations.
More generally, categories like ‘deponent’ have to be justified language-internally. If you can only identify a category with reference to another language, it’s probably not of any relevance in the grammar of the language you’re studying [1].
[0] There’s a nice table in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#Regular_conj...
[1] https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206.006 is an excellent overview of this, though unfortunately paywalled.
Yes: it’s all based on the syntax of the single language in question. Latin has very distinct active and passive conjugations [0]; we know they’re active and passive because of the effect they have on the case assignations. Deponent verbs are those which cannot occur in the active conjugations.
More generally, categories like ‘deponent’ have to be justified language-internally. If you can only identify a category with reference to another language, it’s probably not of any relevance in the grammar of the language you’re studying [1].
[0] There’s a nice table in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#Regular_conj...
[1] https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206.006 is an excellent overview of this, though unfortunately paywalled.
> Deponent verbs are those which cannot occur in the active conjugations.
That makes more sense. I learned deponent as "Active meaning, passive conjugation". It's only the "meaning" part that I think is subjective and/or relative.
That makes more sense. I learned deponent as "Active meaning, passive conjugation". It's only the "meaning" part that I think is subjective and/or relative.
Well, to be honest I’m not quite sure… I never studied Latin. But ‘active meaning’ means very little, as far as I can tell, precisely because it can differ so much even within a single language, to say nothing of how it varies between languages.
>> Deponent verbs are those which cannot occur in the active conjugations.
> That makes more sense.
It's also not quite correct; Latin deponent verbs don't have finite active forms, or active infinitives, but they may have active participles.
As to whether it makes sense to distinguish "active meaning" from the form of the verb...
There is an important piece of Latin syntax exclusively available to deponent verbs, which justifies the description of "active meaning".
Latin has three tenses, past, present, and future. An ordinary Latin verb has a full set of active and passive forms for each of two aspects in each tense.
But a Latin verb only has four participles. They are traditionally known as: present active, perfect passive, future active, and future passive. This is a far cry from the twelve you'd expect. (3 tenses × 2 aspects × 2 voices.) We'll ignore aspect, but the fact that the active voice is missing in the "past tense" in Latin's participial system has a very interesting consequence.
The Latin verb sequor means "follow". It is deponent, and you might choose to think of it as meaning "be led". However, its perfect participle secutus might mean one of two things:
1. It could mean "having followed", a perfect active participial form which is not available to non-deponent Latin verbs. On the analysis where there's no such thing as "active meaning", this is the only interpretation that it should be possible for secutus to have. If sequi [present passive infinitive] means "to follow" and not "to be followed", then secutus [perfect passive participle] should mean "having followed" and not "having been followed".
2. But in fact secutus might also mean "having been followed", passivizing the meaning of the already-grammatically-passive verb. This strongly suggests that native speakers of Latin thought of sequor in terms similar to "passive form, active meaning".
The other reason you might think of deponents as having "active meaning" is that they take direct objects. This is a weaker line of argument, since it's possible for a verb to take multiple direct objects, so there's no real problem with the passive form of such a verb (with two original objects) promoting one of them to subject and keeping the other one as an object.
Compare English "I was given a gift", where I is promoted from its position as primary direct object in "[He] gave me a gift", versus "A gift was given to me", where the only direct object of "[He] gave a gift to me" is promoted.
> That makes more sense.
It's also not quite correct; Latin deponent verbs don't have finite active forms, or active infinitives, but they may have active participles.
As to whether it makes sense to distinguish "active meaning" from the form of the verb...
There is an important piece of Latin syntax exclusively available to deponent verbs, which justifies the description of "active meaning".
Latin has three tenses, past, present, and future. An ordinary Latin verb has a full set of active and passive forms for each of two aspects in each tense.
But a Latin verb only has four participles. They are traditionally known as: present active, perfect passive, future active, and future passive. This is a far cry from the twelve you'd expect. (3 tenses × 2 aspects × 2 voices.) We'll ignore aspect, but the fact that the active voice is missing in the "past tense" in Latin's participial system has a very interesting consequence.
The Latin verb sequor means "follow". It is deponent, and you might choose to think of it as meaning "be led". However, its perfect participle secutus might mean one of two things:
1. It could mean "having followed", a perfect active participial form which is not available to non-deponent Latin verbs. On the analysis where there's no such thing as "active meaning", this is the only interpretation that it should be possible for secutus to have. If sequi [present passive infinitive] means "to follow" and not "to be followed", then secutus [perfect passive participle] should mean "having followed" and not "having been followed".
2. But in fact secutus might also mean "having been followed", passivizing the meaning of the already-grammatically-passive verb. This strongly suggests that native speakers of Latin thought of sequor in terms similar to "passive form, active meaning".
The other reason you might think of deponents as having "active meaning" is that they take direct objects. This is a weaker line of argument, since it's possible for a verb to take multiple direct objects, so there's no real problem with the passive form of such a verb (with two original objects) promoting one of them to subject and keeping the other one as an object.
Compare English "I was given a gift", where I is promoted from its position as primary direct object in "[He] gave me a gift", versus "A gift was given to me", where the only direct object of "[He] gave a gift to me" is promoted.
> English has "to be born". You could argue that it's passive (the active is "to bear"), but it's not how the word is used.
Can you please explain? I don't see this verb being used in active voice almost at all.
Can you please explain? I don't see this verb being used in active voice almost at all.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/borne-vs-born-... - it's rather complicated.
It’s somewhat archaic, but you do see people ‘bearing a child’ on occasion.
Yes, but in most common usage it's in passive voice, but the comment I'm replying to suggests otherwise.
> I don't see this verb being used in active voice
Yes, passive voice, but active meaning. Which was why I was suggesting it was deponent.
"He was born; he lived; he died" <- Three clauses describing what he (actively) did.
If it were active voice: "His mother bore him".
Yes, passive voice, but active meaning. Which was why I was suggesting it was deponent.
"He was born; he lived; he died" <- Three clauses describing what he (actively) did.
If it were active voice: "His mother bore him".
"To be born" is a deponent verb in English. Your textbook was just wrong.
"To get married" might be analyzed as a deponent verb too, but you can also say it's parallel to "to get ready".
"To get married" might be analyzed as a deponent verb too, but you can also say it's parallel to "to get ready".
> The textbook I used said there are no deponent verbs in English.
Some regional dialects of British English allow the use of “stood” for “standing”. E.g., “he is stood over there” = “he is standing over there”.
Likewise for “sit”: “we were sat by the bar” = “we were sitting by the bar”.
I don’t know if those technically count as deponent verbs, but they look a bit like them.
Some regional dialects of British English allow the use of “stood” for “standing”. E.g., “he is stood over there” = “he is standing over there”.
Likewise for “sit”: “we were sat by the bar” = “we were sitting by the bar”.
I don’t know if those technically count as deponent verbs, but they look a bit like them.
I enjoyed this rant at the end of the article:
“[T]he people who criticize the passive the most tend to use it more than the rest of us. George Orwell warns against the passive in his dishonest and rhetorically overblown essay "Politics and the English language". E. B. White does likewise in the obnoxiously ignorant little book by Strunk that he revised and put his name on, The Elements of Style. Both of these authors have a remarkably high frequency of passives in their work: more than 20 percent of their clauses with transitive verbs are cast in the passive, a distinctly higher frequency than you find in most of the prose written by normal people who don't spend their time pontificating hypocritically about the alleged evil of the passive.”
“[T]he people who criticize the passive the most tend to use it more than the rest of us. George Orwell warns against the passive in his dishonest and rhetorically overblown essay "Politics and the English language". E. B. White does likewise in the obnoxiously ignorant little book by Strunk that he revised and put his name on, The Elements of Style. Both of these authors have a remarkably high frequency of passives in their work: more than 20 percent of their clauses with transitive verbs are cast in the passive, a distinctly higher frequency than you find in most of the prose written by normal people who don't spend their time pontificating hypocritically about the alleged evil of the passive.”
The lesson in "Politics and the English language" is about the use of the passive voice to obscure responsibility. The canonical example from current discourse is "officer-involved shooting"; incidents involving police often engage in strange linguistic contortions to avoid assigning responsibility to the obvious person.
https://fair.org/home/copspeak-7-ways-journalists-use-police...
https://fair.org/home/copspeak-7-ways-journalists-use-police...
But it does say "Never use the passive where you can use the active." That advice is harmful to clear and elegant writing. The passive really has nothing to do with politics and police and misleading people. It's a just a structuring device that can be abused in the same way as any aspect of language. It's just as easy to obscure responsibility in the active and attribute responsibility in the passive.
It really points up the difference between linguists, who understand language, and grammarians, who merely peeve about it.
Absolutely. The grammarians George Orwell and E.B. White are infamous for doing nothing with language except complaining about it.
[deleted]
Given what they wrote about language itself, they didn't understand it as well as they thought they did.
There is a difference between understanding linguistics and understanding language. Many linguists who carry the banner of descriptivism completely fail to do the latter. It’s one thing to understand that wearing dark formal attire to a funeral is just a part of etiquette without intrinsic meaning; it’s a whole nother matter to come to a funeral in a Hawaiian shirt and dismiss all criticism as judgmental.
I am fully onboard with the descriptive cause with respect to specific ideas like getting rid of the "split infinitive" formalism. Proudly put that adverb squarely between the "to" and the verb whenever the sentence flows better that way. It is bold to boldly go!
That said, whenever I hear or read "begs the question" when "raises the question" is meant, it feels like nails on chalkboard. If more people recognized actual question begging our politicians and pundits would have to work harder to lie.
Apparently, one can be a centrist on the prescriptivism-descriptivism axis
That said, whenever I hear or read "begs the question" when "raises the question" is meant, it feels like nails on chalkboard. If more people recognized actual question begging our politicians and pundits would have to work harder to lie.
Apparently, one can be a centrist on the prescriptivism-descriptivism axis
Can you provide any examples? In my (limited) experience, linguists have been just as aware of pragmatics, social convention, or current culture as anyone else. (And lexicographers are even more attuned than most.)
Linguists are descriptive for the same reason physicists are: You can't understand something if you come into it with preconceived ideas about how it ought to behave. More to the point:
> It’s one thing to understand that wearing dark formal attire to a funeral is just a part of etiquette without intrinsic meaning; it’s a whole nother matter to come to a funeral in a Hawaiian shirt and dismiss all criticism as judgmental.
In this analogy, linguists are the ones who try to figure out why people like you tend to wear dark clothes to a funeral, why other groups do not, and how those distinctions occurred. Peevers are the ones who insist that all good people wear dark clothes to funerals, ill-bred mongrels wear other kinds of clothing to funerals, and resist any notion that their culture is not universal.
Moving back to linguistics: Linguists understand people have linguistic preferences. Linguists have linguistic preferences. Linguists are opposed to people dressing up their preferences as laws of nature and insisting that everyone must speak according to those preferences. Going back to physics: A physicist may wish for perpetual motion, but a crank insists they have it and demands everyone hail them as the inventor of the perpetual motion device.
> It’s one thing to understand that wearing dark formal attire to a funeral is just a part of etiquette without intrinsic meaning; it’s a whole nother matter to come to a funeral in a Hawaiian shirt and dismiss all criticism as judgmental.
In this analogy, linguists are the ones who try to figure out why people like you tend to wear dark clothes to a funeral, why other groups do not, and how those distinctions occurred. Peevers are the ones who insist that all good people wear dark clothes to funerals, ill-bred mongrels wear other kinds of clothing to funerals, and resist any notion that their culture is not universal.
Moving back to linguistics: Linguists understand people have linguistic preferences. Linguists have linguistic preferences. Linguists are opposed to people dressing up their preferences as laws of nature and insisting that everyone must speak according to those preferences. Going back to physics: A physicist may wish for perpetual motion, but a crank insists they have it and demands everyone hail them as the inventor of the perpetual motion device.
There's one famous US magazine that set up a UK branch. They hired an editor who said in his two-sentence biography that he's "a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist". As a result, this editor didn't edit. And given that he was writing to an audience of nerds, most of the responses to his articles were people taking issue with sentences like "Thanks to the improvements in AI that have happened due to Moore's Law..."
Needless to say, the UK branch got closed down.
Your analogy with funeral attire and Hawaiian shirts is excellent.
Needless to say, the UK branch got closed down.
Your analogy with funeral attire and Hawaiian shirts is excellent.
Another again to be some kind of bizzarro universalist . . .
[1] is a funeral with Hawaiian shirts, [2] is a funeral but likely not as you know one.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8dmj_Gkq2s
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI6TRTBZUMM
[1] is a funeral with Hawaiian shirts, [2] is a funeral but likely not as you know one.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8dmj_Gkq2s
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI6TRTBZUMM
Sorry for the tacit assumption of the audience of HN, but I think that demanding constant awareness of all possible cultural differences is quite inadequate.
Anyway, I don’t see how those links disprove my point? Those cultures have different expectations; and my point is that those expectations are valid.
Anyway, I don’t see how those links disprove my point? Those cultures have different expectations; and my point is that those expectations are valid.
You're explicitly discussing language and linguistics.
Last time I checked in at /r/linguistics that covered more than just your tacit assumption of the world at large.
Your point also seems to be both that cultures have expectations and that those that do not meet those expectations will receive criticism (that would be wrong to shrug off as "merely judgemental").
As someone who's travelled widely in the past few decades across a number of cultures I've frequently stood out like the only person in black in a sea of Hawaiian shirts; it's rare that I've been criticised, more common to have been thanked for attending.
I find communities that critically judge differences to their expectations to be relatively rare, many communities recognise that others have other behaviours, I myself do find that those communities with a rigid set of expectations that are overly judgemental of those that do not meet those expectations to be worrisome.
Last time I checked in at /r/linguistics that covered more than just your tacit assumption of the world at large.
Your point also seems to be both that cultures have expectations and that those that do not meet those expectations will receive criticism (that would be wrong to shrug off as "merely judgemental").
As someone who's travelled widely in the past few decades across a number of cultures I've frequently stood out like the only person in black in a sea of Hawaiian shirts; it's rare that I've been criticised, more common to have been thanked for attending.
I find communities that critically judge differences to their expectations to be relatively rare, many communities recognise that others have other behaviours, I myself do find that those communities with a rigid set of expectations that are overly judgemental of those that do not meet those expectations to be worrisome.
But isn't that also the point of descriptivism in linguistics? That linguistics is the study of language as it's actually used in the context of different groups and cultures, rather than as an officially described, created thing?
For example, the habitual be isn't part of any prescribed English dialect, but it still has its own grammar, and can be used correctly or incorrectly. The goal of descriptivism here is not to say "you can say anything you want, and others have to accept you", but rather to say "dialects spring up organically, and our job is to study them as they arise, rather than to define them from the top down".
For example, the habitual be isn't part of any prescribed English dialect, but it still has its own grammar, and can be used correctly or incorrectly. The goal of descriptivism here is not to say "you can say anything you want, and others have to accept you", but rather to say "dialects spring up organically, and our job is to study them as they arise, rather than to define them from the top down".
I read both these texts and made myself the same reflexion. I'm not as vehement and thought it was a matter of discourse (who they write as and for, where they write from etc). Anyway, I found Politics and the English language uninspiring.
I aways took the aversion of English speakers against the passive voice as a sign of linguistic incompetence. Instead of teaching students how to write well on the passive and active voices, they prefer to reduce the language to its minimum denominator.
The confirmation is in [1]: many journalists and writers don't even know how to define the passive. It is a sad thing to watch.
[1] http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.html.
The confirmation is in [1]: many journalists and writers don't even know how to define the passive. It is a sad thing to watch.
[1] http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.html.
The aversion comes from high school English, where getting students to avoid passive voice results in a quick, cheap improvement for nearly 100% of them. Since most people never get much better at writing than they are in high school, this is a net-good.
The bigger lesson, which students who keep working at writing learn, is to be aware that active and passive exist and that it's worth keeping an eye out for sentences that read better with one or the other.
But, for whatever reason, high school students use way the fuck too much passive voice, and they use it inappropriately. If the only rule you can get them to internalize is "stop using passive voice", that helps a ton. It stops being a "rule" if you know what you're doing, but they don't.
Source: I'm close with a few English teachers, and with some authors.
The bigger lesson, which students who keep working at writing learn, is to be aware that active and passive exist and that it's worth keeping an eye out for sentences that read better with one or the other.
But, for whatever reason, high school students use way the fuck too much passive voice, and they use it inappropriately. If the only rule you can get them to internalize is "stop using passive voice", that helps a ton. It stops being a "rule" if you know what you're doing, but they don't.
Source: I'm close with a few English teachers, and with some authors.
In fiction, the active voice is usually clearer and flows better.
In non-fiction (especially journalism) it's frustrating when it's used to hide who did the action.
..or..
In non-fiction (especially journalism) it's frustrating when the writer uses it to hide who did the action.
In non-fiction (especially journalism) it's frustrating when it's used to hide who did the action.
..or..
In non-fiction (especially journalism) it's frustrating when the writer uses it to hide who did the action.
"It's used" clearer indicates what is frustrating than "the writer uses", isn't it? It doesn't matter who uses this technique, it may be the writer, or the editor, or the censor, or whoever, it will be frustrating in any case.
To get this clarity with active voice we need to replace "the writer" with a pronoun, like "someone" or "anyone", but it is just ugly.
So to my mind there is no silver bullet, no simple ways to do it right in all cases. It depends.
To get this clarity with active voice we need to replace "the writer" with a pronoun, like "someone" or "anyone", but it is just ugly.
So to my mind there is no silver bullet, no simple ways to do it right in all cases. It depends.
The hate is often justified.
I write in English about German bureaucracy for non-native speakers from all over the world. Using active voice in the second person makes instructions far clearer if you have a tenuous grasp of the language. You know exactly who does what.
I also find active sentences easier to parse in languages I'm not fluent in.
I write in English about German bureaucracy for non-native speakers from all over the world. Using active voice in the second person makes instructions far clearer if you have a tenuous grasp of the language. You know exactly who does what.
I also find active sentences easier to parse in languages I'm not fluent in.
Most serious writing guides will tell you to avoid the passive voice, since in almost all cases the meaning is clearer in the active voice.
Another great article by Pullum on the English passive: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.html. (Better than the submitted one, in my opinion!)
I accidentally the passive; is this dangerous?
I think it is good advice to avoid passives, if you have no particular reason to use them, purely because they're usually longer and shorter and equally clear is better, usually. It's also a good idea to be more explicit, usually, and passives allow you to leave out information but don't have to, so I mostly agree with the pushback against the passive for that reason.
I felt the essay was undercut by overcomplicated and repetitive explanation. The passive voice is pretty easily identified.
> The passive voice is pretty easily identified.
Apparently many people who are supposed to know how, don't. Take a look at the "terrible example" the article links to in section 5:
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922
Apparently many people who are supposed to know how, don't. Take a look at the "terrible example" the article links to in section 5:
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922
Yep. The collection of anti-examples is great. I love that part of the article.
Yeah, I was confused. The author explicitly sets up how complicated and deeply technical the true meaning of passive is, so I was prepared for some juicy learnings, then they just…repeat the simple definition that I learned in school when I was 12.
It's not really deeply technical, it's just trying to be comprehensive and concise. If you want deeply technical, read Pullum's explanation of passives in Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
The essay was undercut by the very point of the essay.
I must admit, that's a new one on me.
I must admit, that's a new one on me.
I guess. If the central claim of the essay is that it really genuinely takes three pages to explain what the passive voice is.
On the other hand, sections 2 through 7 of the article really just belabor the same point made in section 1. If I just say "wow, 7 sections!" and stop reading, then, sure, it looks like the concept really is very difficult to explain. But when I read all those sections, I don't feel convinced anymore.
On the other hand, sections 2 through 7 of the article really just belabor the same point made in section 1. If I just say "wow, 7 sections!" and stop reading, then, sure, it looks like the concept really is very difficult to explain. But when I read all those sections, I don't feel convinced anymore.
Well played!
FWIW, "mistakes were made" is the all-weather all-terrain all-purpose phrase for the avoidance of political responsibility.
Passive voice should not be used in documentation of software.
Let's ignore that your sentence is in the passive voice, your reason is?
> Let's ignore that your sentence is
(That - and the drastic tone lacking justifications - indicates a probable intention to joke...)
(That - and the drastic tone lacking justifications - indicates a probable intention to joke...)
Passive voice typically does not specify the acting party. Merely stating that something will or should happen, without saying who or what is responsible for making it happen, is incomplete information.
Using passive voice for my original comment was tongue-in-cheek.
Using passive voice for my original comment was tongue-in-cheek.
You should not use passive voice on documentation or software.
FTFY
FTFY
[deleted]
But it got me thinking, it must all be relative. Can native speakers of a language even think they have deponent verbs without having another language to compare to?
English has "to be born". You could argue that it's passive (the active is "to bear"), but it's not how the word is used. But French has the active "naître" as "to be born". Does that mean French speakers think that English has deponent verbs?