[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [External] : Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: [External] : Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash |
Date: |
Sat, 16 Apr 2022 21:42:19 +0000 |
(A reply for the list, not necessarily for you.)
> but in the U.K. we don't have this idea that
> the passive voice is worse than the active --
> I didn't learn the distinction until after
> finishing a humanities degree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AEnglish_passive_voice#Differences_between_US_and_British_English
___
Guidance about the active/passive choice is generally
more subtle/involved than just one being considered
systematically "worse than" the other.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_passive_voice#Style_advice,
and that whole page, generally. For example:
"Use of the passive in English varies with writing
style and field. It is generally much less used
than the active voice but is more prevalent in
scientific writing than in other prose.
Contemporary style guides discourage excessive
use of the passive but appropriate use is
generally accepted, for instance where the
patient is the topic, the agent is unimportant
(and therefore omitted), or the agent is to be
highlighted (and therefore placed toward the end)."
And see https://www.grammarly.com/blog/passive-voice/.
___
One study of the use of passive voice in scientific writing:
https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1301_2014_A03.pdf
___
IMO it's more about avoiding a systematic or
habitual overuse of the passive voice, which is
not unknown to writing that's more formalistic in
style. ;-)
There's no formula that applies well absolutely.
Neither active nor passive voice is systematically
"worse than" the other.
But if you have a doubt in some case, read both
and see which you think is clearer. If still in
doubt, it probably means you see no special
reason for the passive voice there - use active.
- New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash, Sean Whitton, 2022/04/16
- Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/04/16
- Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash, Sean Whitton, 2022/04/16
- RE: [External] : Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/04/17
- RE: [External] : Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash, Drew Adams, 2022/04/17
- Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash, Sean Whitton, 2022/04/19
- Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash, Sean Whitton, 2022/04/19
- Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/04/20
- Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash, Sean Whitton, 2022/04/20
- Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/04/21
Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash, Sean Whitton, 2022/04/16
Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash, Stefan Monnier, 2022/04/16