The Passive Sentence

[kennyc]

Had to break the tie.

"sometimes"

[spellbanisher]

There is one correction I would like to make from my previous post. Something expressed in the active voice is usually expressed positively. So someone using the active voice would not say "Roman's didn't built Rome in a day;" they would say something like "The Romans needed a long time to build Rome" or "It took a long time for the Romans to build Rome." Still, with this maxim I can't think of an instance where the active voice is as succinct and memorable as "Rome wasn't built in a day."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Harmon

By hiding the actor.

Thanks. Yes, that's perfectly true, but it's not a disadvantage: one very valid reason to use the passive is when you specifically don't want to bring the actor to the fore. That's the very reason that it has conventionally been used in scientific writing.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by glin

As a linguist I read and wrote scientific papers about language for about thirty years : I never thought that some day I should read a whole discussion about the ethical merits of active and passive sentences... Rarely saw as silly a discussion...

I see the merit of your point. Nevertheless, the Office writing program, Word, has a syntactical corrector and the user can ask that passive sentences be put in evidence. Apparently it is not considered so silly in the English language ...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by beppe

I see the merit of your point. Nevertheless, the Office writing program, Word, has a syntactical corrector and the user can ask that passive sentences be put in evidence. Apparently it is not considered so silly in the English language ...

In addition

11. Use the active voice.

The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive:

I shall always remember my first visit to Boston.

This is much better than

My first visit to Boston will always be remembered by me.

The latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. If the writer tries to make it more concise by omitting "by me,"

My first visit to Boston will always be remembered,

it becomes indefinite: is it the writer, or some person undisclosed, or the world at large, that will always remember this visit?

This rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary.

The dramatists of the Restoration are little esteemed to-day.
Modern readers have little esteem for the dramatists of the Restoration.

The first would be the right form in a paragraph on the dramatists of the Restoration; the second, in a paragraph on the tastes of modern readers. The need of making a particular word the subject of the sentence will often, as in these examples, determine which voice is to be used.

The habitual use of the active voice, however, makes for forcible writing. This is true not only in narrative principally concerned with action, but in writing of any kind. Many a tame sentence of description or exposition can be made lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice for some such perfunctory expression as there is, or could be heard.

There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground. Dead leaves covered the ground.
The sound of the falls could still be heard. The sound of the falls still reached our ears.
The reason that he left college was that his health became impaired. Failing health compelled him to leave college.
It was not long before he was very sorry that he had said what he had. He soon repented his words.

As a rule, avoid making one passive depend directly upon another.

Gold was not allowed to be exported. It was forbidden to export gold (The export of gold was prohibited).
He has been proved to have been seen entering the building. It has been proved that he was seen to enter the building.

In both the examples above, before correction, the word properly related to the second passive is made the subject of the first.

A common fault is to use as the subject of a passive construction a noun which expresses the entire action, leaving to the verb no function beyond that of completing the sentence.

A survey of this region was made in 1900. This region was surveyed in 1900.
Mobilization of the army was rapidly carried out. The army was rapidly mobilized.
Confirmation of these reports cannot be obtained. These reports cannot be confirmed.

Compare the sentence, "The export of gold was prohibited," in which the predicate "was prohibited" expresses something not implied in "export."

------
From Strunk and White - Elements of Style copyright 1918
I think the topic/discussion has been around a bit more than 30 years.

Link to the full publication on line: http://www.bartleby.com/141/

[TGS]

One of the consequences of the apparent internationalisation of English, particularly as the currency of academic discourse, is that the anally retentive avoidance of any personal involvement in writing seems to be diminishing - not least because some of the contortions that language has been subjected to in order to maintain the passive voice are all but incomprehensible to any but native English speakers schooled by dessicated professors who turn to dust on exposure to sunlight - both metaphorically and literally. Having said that I still think "Twenty-five participants were selected...", tells you as much with less clutter than, "We selected twenty-five participants..."

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

The passive voice is preferable when the subject is unknown, unimportant, or imprecise.

Or when one is trying to obscure the issue, hide the actor, and evade responsibility.

The passive voice is like a gun. It all depends on where you are pointing the damn thing...

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Or when one is trying to obscure the issue, hide the actor, and evade responsibility.

The passive voice is like a gun. It all depends on where you are pointing the damn thing...

There are other ways to obscure the issue, such as completely ignoring three-fourths of my post in your reply. So the active voice isn't like a gun? If somebody wants to "obscure the issue, hide the actor, and evade responsibility," they can just as easily do it with the active voice. The active voice can be a very effective tool for lying and distortion because it conveys sincerity and straightforwardness, even if the speaker is blatantly lying. If your familiar with American politics, directly accusing your opponent of disloyalty or socialism or any other nasty thing is a very effective tool for populist appeal. It is those who don't speak in absolutes, or in self-assured and unflinching language, that are viewed as wishy-washy, weak, unamerican, and elitist. The active voice encourages absolutist thinking and black/white morality, as evidenced by the active-voice crusaders who relentlessly slander the passive voice even though the founders of their linguistic religion (William Strunk Jr. and George Orwell) were never so extreme.

Now I am not pro-passive voice or anti-active voice. I just think its disturbing how fanatical and dogmatic "Elements of Style" Doctrinaires are. Using the passive voice is not just a matter of style anymore; since Orwell wrote "Politics and the English Language" passive and active voice have been drenched with moral connotations. It is manly, and vigorous, and righteous, and candid to use to the active voice. It is unmanly, and weak, and treacherous, and pretentious to use the passive voice. A matter of style has become a linguistic crusade. The truth is that both excel in areas where the other falls short. The passive voice is often overused, but that doesn't make it any more or less inclined towards evil than the active voice.

On a final note: the most virulent strain in politics today is not the tendency for slick-tongued political-speak, but attraction towards uber-macho, straight-talking cowboys.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

There are other ways to obscure the issue, such as completely ignoring three-fourths of my post in your reply.

It is not possible or desireable to respond to every point being made: it is best to respond to the points needing to be responded to.

Or: I'll respond to the points I think are worth my time:

I have the advantage of you in that I work in a huge federal bureaucracy. Practically everything I read is in the passive voice. I have been taught through experience that the passive voice should be called "the bureaucratic voice," and outlawed.

1. Anyone who is employed by this organization and uses the passive voice in his official writings can be fired.

Or

2. if you work for me, and you write in the passive voice, I will fire you.

Chose one. Or rather, 2.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

So the active voice isn't like a gun?

I'd say it's more like a hand grenade.