This post has nothing whatsoever to do with apostrophes, but it is about grammar and linguistics. You have been warned.
A few years ago when MyT was new, a certain blogger advised his audience and fellows never to use the passive voice. Give up now if you don’t understand what that is; please.
Many others agreed with him, so it was left to a few brave souls like myself to tell him that he was wrong. Naturally we received the rough end of his tongue for what he considered to be our ignorance.
I have been meaning to research the subject ever since, but only today did I finally get around to doing so, and what a splendid and worthwhile adventure it proved to be.
Here on the left is the culprit. An American publication which has been confusing and misdirecting millions of Americans for over 50 years, written by two well-meaning gentlemen who knew the square root of nada about English Grammar. Sadly this book remains, apparently, the style and grammar bible in almost all American centres of learning; schools, colleges and Universities alike.
It turns out that Strunk and White did not even understand what the passive voice is, for three of their four examples do not, in reality, employ the passive.
I shall not expand further here, for I found a superb article penned a couple of years ago by the Head of Linguistics at the University of Edinburgh, Geoffrey K. Pullum. I’m sure that no Charioteer would dare to argue with an Embra Professor, and who would want to? He wrote an entertaining and enthralling piece, tactfully entitled –
50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice
Please click on the link, I promise that you will be as amused as you are enlightened – Pullum also exposes several other glaring errors in Strunk & White’s tomfoolery, including the that/which controversy and the split infinitive.
Enjoy 😀
Boadicea's Chariot 
Mr Bear: ah ha! Now I can quite understand why I know bugger-all about the English language. Between having this little propaganda missive driven into my poor uninformed skull and having a tendency to retain some aspects of Germany grammar I never had a chance.
Well there you go, Herr Christoph! 😀
Thank you Bearsy.
I have a new hero, even although he is a weegie by origin if his Wiki entry is to be believed. Talking of which, I do hope that it is true that, before entering the groves of academe, he was the organist in the Ram Jam Band backing Geno Washington.
Outstanding final paragraph in a superb article!
And I now know why Word keeps putting green wavy lines under constructions which (that?) seem fine to me.
Quite a chap, isn’t he?
In manuals I am supposed to use only the active voice. It can be a right beggar sometimes I can tell you.
I think that opening sentence was passive for example, the active version would have the verb before the noun. Use only the active voice in manuals. The way I was taught, was to transpose the subject in front of the sentence. In that last case it would be “I” but “You” is also acceptable. If the statement still scans it will probably be active.
YOU use only the active… works therefore active.
In practice, I end up chasing my small furry tail until I just give up and write what looks right.
This article explains a great deal about American writers and the irritating way in which MS Word tries to correct my grammar. Never having had the benefit of a university education, I am always a little insecure about my academic qualifications, or rather my lack of them, and so I become somewhat sensitive when my own grammar or style is criticised.
Having said that, I should be the last person to dare contradict so eminent an individual as Professor Pullum, especially after Bearsy has warned against doing so. But, contradict I must. Little of what he said struck me as controversial or provided cause for argument on my part. Indeed I was somewhat surprised to learn that a book on grammar would even suggest some of the rules being promoted by its authors. However, there is one area where I must, against my better judgement, take the side of Strunk and White.
Pullum says this:
My argument in support of Strunk and White, follows:
1) To counter the authors’ assertion that ‘none’ means ‘no one’ or ‘not one’ and must therefore take a singular verb, Pullum provides examples 3 eminent authors who have used ‘none’ with the plural. Wilde and Stoker were Irish, while Montgomery was Canadian*.
2) Though he criticises E.B. Whites grammatical shortcomings, Pullum says that White often wrote ‘beautifully’. If White was capable of making mistakes, so too are the writers mentioned above. Being a talented writer does not make one a talented grammarian. There are many instances of grammatical mistakes in literature (though don’t ask me to provide examples right now).
3) There can be little doubt as to the origin of the word, ‘none’. It clearly means ‘not one’ and should, therefore, take the singular. What I find curious by those who object to that position is that taking the singular verb does not alter the meaning of the sentence. So the examples given would all mean the same if presented thus: Wilde, ‘none of us is perfect’, Stoker, ‘none of us was surprised’ and Montgomery, ‘none of us ever does’. By all means allow the plural under the guise of literary licence, but at least acknowledge that, grammatically, it is incorrect.
I have crossed swords with Araminta, and via her, Brendano, on this subject before. Of course as much as I respect Brendano, he too is Irish, so that discounts his opinion to a large extent. 😉 None of you, or them, is able to persuade me that I am wrong and Pullum is right
*(Actually, to be fair, Dickens, Collins and Austen also use the plural.)
Ferret – huh?
Which opening sentence? The passive is not used in your first sentence, if that’s what you meant. Which verb before which noun? 😯
The only passive construction is “I was taught”.
Oops that bear, muddled furry thinking again.
Change noun and verb for object and action and try again mustelid. If the object comes before the action in a sentence then it is probably passive.
The ball is thrown.
Ball is the object, thrown the action (after thrown you can insert ‘by me’ or ‘by Bearsy’ also a passive indicator).
Throw the ball.
Action before object. Active voice. (also you can insert a possessive at the start ‘I’ or ‘you’)
The whole thing gets me confused to hell.
Um, Sipu – I’m not going to argue with you. If you want to understand Pullum’s (and other noted linguists’) reasoning in greater detail, read ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’.
But, just for fun, have a think about the fact that the phrasal noun ‘none of us’ includes the first person plural accusative pronoun ‘us’.
😆
Ferret – yes, true as far as it goes (not worrying about your creative use of grammatical terms – ‘I’ and ‘you’ are pronouns; possessives are things with ‘of’ in front, or “‘s” or “s'” at the end). But your opening sentence still ain’t passive. 😆
I never said I was a grammar god. 🙂
As I explained at the outset I find the whole thing confusing, even after reading your excellent link.
My opening sentence was:
“In manuals I am supposed to use only the active voice.”
The object is ‘active voice’, the action is ‘use’ so that is active. My statement was that I think it is passive because it looks like it should be, but I am wrong.
Tee hee! 😆
Strunk and White made similar mistakes!
Please don’t worry about it.
Bearsy, your #10- yeah but, no but! Just as ‘none of us’, is a phrasal noun, so is, ‘one of us’.
Consider: “Does none of us have a car?”
Would we say, ‘Yes, one of us have a car’?
I can see that I will have to get a copy of ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’.
Bearsy, I too am confused. Re Ferret’s opening sentence, can you explain why ‘I am supposed (by my employer – implied) to use the active voice’, is not passive? It is not Ferret that is doing the supposing, it is his employer.
To be honest, I am not sure that the sentence is grammatically correct in any event, (no offence Ferret, just expressing my own ignorance.) Should it be ‘It is supposed that I will use the active voice…’?
It is a very interesting article. I can’t remember learning anything about grammar or linguistics. I most certainly must have done so at some point. I tend to go with whatever sounds right to me, but mistakes are made!
I have daily arguments with Microsoft on the subject of the passive voice.
I gave up arguing with Microsoft a long time ago – I switched the ‘checked grammar’ option off! It clearly has no idea of what the passive is and I find that keeping to the active voice is incredibly boring and, often, far too convoluted…
We certainly didn’t learn linguistics, but were taught grammar – some of which I’ve had to unlearn.
I have a copy of “Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction” on my bookshelf. It belongs to my daughter. I haven’t read the whole thing, but I have dipped into it from time to time.
Sorry for the delay, but I am afraid that family dinner takes precedence over The Chariot. 😉
I will try to make this as simple as I can, taking it step by step.
First of all, let’s look at some sentences in the active voice.
One can say, “My employer orders me to use the active voice.”
And one can also say, “My employer instructs me to use the active voice.”
But one cannot say, “My company supposes me to use the active voice.”
Why?
Well, it isn’t grammatically correct, is it? It “sounds wrong”, doesn’t it?
This is because “supposes” does not take an object – it is intransitive.
Since a passive construction employs the object (and discards the subject, or reintroduces it in a “by” clause), you can’t construct a passive version if there is no object – ie. if the verb is intransitive.
In Ferret’s sentence, the word ‘supposed’, although identical to the past participle of the verb ‘to suppose’, is actually an adjective. Let’s use another adjective, and see what happens – ‘ready’.
“I am ready to use the active voice.”
Makes perfect sense, and no-one would try to call that a passive construction, would they?
🙂
I know your post – and very interesting it is too – is not about apostrophes, but I was sent this the other day and it is in America. Please close your eyes before it gets to “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.”
Boadicea.
The requirement to avoid the passive in Technical manuals is supposedly because the active voice is often more precise!
Thanks Sheona – the singing’s OK, though. 😕
As a young research solid state chemist, I was always encouraged by my elders and (sometimes) betters to use the passive voice in scientific papers. Thinking back, I can see what they mean.
Does it sound better to say:
“Zinc, to a concentration of 5×1018cm-3, made the gallium arsenide highly P-type!
or
“The gallium arsenide was highly doped P-type, with a doping level of 5×1018cm-3 of zinc”?
I know which is clearer to me.
In my experience of user manuals, I cannot always understand them whether they are written in the passive or active voice! 🙂
I’m with you FEEG – but neither of your examples are in the passive voice. 😆
This is passive – The GaAs was rendered strongly P-type by doping with zinc to a concentration of 5×1018cm-3.
… neither of your examples is .. in Sipu-speak. 😀
Thanks, that makes sense, when you realise that ‘supposed’ is an adjective. I was just having difficulty in seeing it as such. What sort of person am I? I am a supposed person.
Further investigation satisfies that little quandary.
I publish the following, courtesy of Wikipedia, only because I think you will enjoy the first example.
Adjective
supposed (not comparable)
1) Presumed to be true, but without proof
Jesus is the supposed son of God.
2)(with infinitive) Generally considered or expected.
The movie is supposed to be good.
3) (with infinitive) Having an obligation.
You are not supposed to smoke in the restaurant. [Note: this means, you are obliged not to smoke.]
The phone is supposed to come with a manual.
4) (with infinitive) Intended.
The phone is supposed to help us save time.
🙂
Thanks for that, Sipu. That’s a very helpful extract – and yes, I love the religious bit!
Like most things, detecting the passive is easy once you get the hang of it. 😆
Supplementary note –
One of the references I found – I forget where – said something like this –
Depends on whether you consider “doped” to be an adjective or a past participle! 🙂
Vair interesting.The article was enjoyed by me – I mean, I enjoyed the article.
I wasn’t taught any grammar at school, formally. There was a time in the UK when it went completely out of fashion, but my boys have been taught grammar and occasionally correct me. I’m with Ara’s tongue in cheek comment about mistakes: and I decide by what ‘sounds’ right a lot of the time.
A couple of grammar texts on my book shelf are rarely opened by me. 🙂
I have ‘English our English’ and how to sing it by Keith Waterhouse which was Pa’s, and came to live on our shelves after Pa died. And I have a copy of Bloomsbury Grammar Guide, by Gordon Jarvie. (on the back it says ‘the accessible guide to good grammar’ – another text book, which I can’t find just now was too deep for me and I quickly lost the will to live whenever I started looking up a problem to find a solution.
No FEEG, it doesn’t depend upon interpretation. Your second sentence is not an example of the passive. Sorry to be blunt, but you are 100% wrong. It would appear that you do not actually understand what the passive voice is.
I’m sorry, but I’m not going to explain why this time. See if you can work it out for yourself. 😀
It is obvious, there does seem to be a certain amount of confusion as regards this subject, Bearsy, it remains to be seen whether enlightenment strikes, or I am stricken. Nevertheless, interest has been shown, don’t you think? I am unsure if I truly understand the passive voice, only time will tell!
may I refer you to this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_As_She_Is_Spoke
The mystery of how to speak English revealed…. ?
FEEG
Part of the problem is that most of us were taught to classify words rather simply – without actually looking at what a specific word is doing in the sentence under consideration. The word ‘doped’ in your sentence is an adjective… it isn’t open to interpretation! It is quite specifically describing ‘P-type’ (whatever that is!).
Araminta
I have to own that I don’t find the subject at all confusing! Grammar was the only bit of English that I really enjoyed… But, I suspect it’s like a lot of things, if one knows how something works it isn’t always easy to understand why others don’t. 🙂
Absolutely agree, Boadicea. It’s always easy if you know how. I did something called parsing (?) for O’Level English Language, but I have to say, I hated it. I preferred English Literature.
The problem I have with Grammar is that I have forgotten most of it, and I’m losing confidence daily. 😦
So I am constantly confused or confusion reigns!
No Araminta, you haven’t forgotten English grammar. The rules are built in!
The only problem you or others may be having is that you have temporarily forgotten (or never learned) how to describe or analyse the perfectly formed English that your speech centre effortlessly produces for you.
Coupled in some cases with a burning but understandable desire to prove that Bearsy is wrong, doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is an idiot. 😆
Thank you, Bearsy. That makes me feel so much better. You are absolutely right, I cannot analyse why I think I’m right or others are wrong.
Irritating, but I rarely argue with you on the subject of grammar or syntax. I wouldn’t dare! 😉
It’s odd that I enjoyed dissecting the English language – but loathed dissecting English literature!
By the way, after much confusion – I have finally got my e-reader working and am well pleased with it. Bearsy does not like it… 🙂
Ah, well, we are all different, Boadicea. I’m still thinking about the e-reader. 🙂
I did not mean you, Araminta. 🙄
Perhaps it’s worthwhile pointing out that there are two types of Grammarian – those who describe, and those who prescribe.
Modern linguists fall into the first camp, to a man. They analyse and describe language as it is. I follow the teachings of these worthies (Crystal, Pullum et alia).
The second camp includes many of the old school – Strunk & White, Fowler, Orwell etc – whose approach is to tell people what constructions they must use, and what they mustn’t use. They are frequently wrong! 🙂
Brendano and Amicus are both great disciples for prescriptive grammar.
The first chapter of ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’ explains the differences very clearly, with many fine examples. I commend it to anyone who has an interest in getting to first base with real grammar. You can access it here.
I am glad to know there are others who enjoy grammar, perhaps because I am a modern linguist. Colleagues could always rely on me to volunteer to sit through an hour on “Using of the subjunctive in French” or some such while they revelled in a literary talk.
Good on ya’, Sheona! 🙂
I always had a mild interest in grammar, but it was my second wife, a speech therapist, who put me on the right track and introduced me to the works of David Crystal, who(m) I believe she knew.
Thanks for that Sheona – It’s comforting to know that we’re not alone!
I think I have also been slightly influenced by a speech therapist in the family, Bearsy.
Regarding your #41, I think I am in the descriptive camp with you, but oddly you seem to be slightly prescriptive etymologically speaking. I am meaning words as opposed to grammar!
I’d go with “who”. 🙂
Good evening Bearsy
I think that I am mainly on your side of this discussion. All that matters to me is expressing my thoughts as clearly as I can. I may get it wrong sometimes but it really does not matter for me if I stray into the occasional grammatical minefield and blow myself up. Just happy that grammarian giants like the Great Pullum can explain and excuse.
Added to which/that, I can always play the Caledonian card and assure everybody that I am following Jockinese rules of grammar and meaning. These do, of course, exist. I have never yet met a Southron who has been able to understand that ‘I doubt we will have rain today’ meant ‘I am absolutely certain that it will rain today’ to many of my parents’ generation, particularly north of the Highland Fault (where it rains nearly every day anyway, if truth be told).
Moving on, I absolutely agree with you about prescriptivitists who try to tell us what is ‘right’ and’wrong’. May they all rot in an linguistic Hell of their own making. I hope that I never follow their example.
Can one be a disciple ‘for’ something instead of the more usual ‘of ‘it?
Araminta – yup, I understand ‘etymologically’!
But I am surprised that you think so. Whilst it can be very useful to go back to the roots from which a modern word has been drawn in establishing its meaning, I am an staunch advocate of words meaning what they now mean, rather than what they ought to mean from their origins.
If you’ve caught me out in this, I shall be suitably abashed.
However, if you are talking about political semantics – like your insistence that ‘racism’ includes and subsumes ‘culturalism’ – I reject the accusation strongly. That particular sweeping inclusivity is valid only for a polarised subset of speakers. 😆
Hi JM – yes, I wondered about that when I wrote it. “For” seemed more appropriate at the time, but I fear I have possibly distorted the meaning of ‘disciple’ here; perhaps I should have used ‘standard-bearers’?
Ah, Bearsy, spot on!
Racism, well I remember you asserting that racism means whatever you choose it to mean. 😉
You have it back-ackards, Araminta. Shame on you. 😯
Sussex dialect again.
I’m only joshing, Bearsy!
Night night, it’s been an interesting discussion. 🙂
Entendu. 😆
Sleep well.
Thanks for ‘standard-bearers’, Bearsy. I can now go to bed. Kept trying to think of nouns using ‘for’ rather than ‘of’ in the context but was struggling. I had just about convinced myself that ‘advocates’ might work but I was still a bit dubious.
Whatever, thanks for this post again. I enjoyed it this morning and was genuinely reluctant to tear myself away from it to go to work. Pullum rules!
Yay! Pullum rules indeed!
Slumber peacefully.
Blimey! Way over my head! I never even worried about grammar until now! How will I ever be able to write in the Chariot again without worrying about getting corrected?! And I was just feeling comfortable about my spelling!
It must be a classic example of how things get worse through time. I despair of the quality of the report writing of my underlings at work and my teenage children. But I don’t recall any lessons at Grammar school about grammar! So you old fogies must think the same of me as I do of my juniors. Yikes!
The Chariot at its best (with no apostrophe), but I can’t contribute as I know nuffink!
Me and you both Cuprum. I’m negatively terrified of writing a new post for fear of castigation. It’s got so bad I’m fretting over every plural. To disguise my worry over where the apostrophe should go I’ve tried to make light of it by adding lots of eseseses at the end of the word.
Example sentence-
The pterodactyl expert’s wit was cram packed with lots of sarcasmseseseseses.