There’s at least one thing more amusing than people ranting and railing against passive voice:
…the fact that they can’t even identify it.
[P]eople disagree with me when I point out such things (over and over again, like a CD that has gotten stuc- stuc- stuc- stuc- stuc- stuc- stuc- stuc- stuck), and ask rhetorically where on God’s green earth knowledge of elementary English grammar terminology disappeared to in the late 20th century. People — writing advisers, in fact — are scoring zero on identifying a grammatical construction they feel a need to warn other people not to use. I know I have already pointed this out a time or two, but really, this is an utterly insane situation.
–Geoffrey K. Pullum, Language Log contributor
Click here and read the whole post "The finance world tackles the passive: 0 for 2", and follow the llinks Dr Pullum has embedded there.
And while you’re there, be sure you’re subscribed to the excellent Language Log.
My only grammar advice is that folk buy the Strunk and White Book, lol. Its a good book.
I’m jumping round blogs reminding folk the blog carnival is on Friday. Posts need to be done on Thursday. Thanks.
Oh, boy. I hope that was a joke, or we’re going to have to have a full-scale slugfest here, complete with wet noodles and water balloons.
Kidding! Seriously, though, I gave up my support for The Elements of Style a long time ago. When they’re right (which is sometimes), they’re trivial, and when they’re wrong (which is a lot of times), they’re dangerous.
This link (if I’ve done this right) http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=strunk+white should lead to a search of Language Log articles containing the names of both both authors, for a better light than I could ever shed on the subject.