3 ms·
> Usually the rule is "no -ly adverbs" What?? That makes even less sense than the "no adverbs" rule. Nothing in the syntax or semantics distinguish -ly adver
by blahedo 16y ago
> Usually the rule is "no -ly adverbs"
What?? That makes even less sense than the "no adverbs" rule. Nothing in the syntax or semantics distinguish -ly adverbs from any other. (I only included -ly adverbs in my count because I was lazy and they were easier to search for.)
> Certainly the passive voice makes for a boring read.
You don't read much that isn't boring, then, eh? Too bad. Good writers use the passive voice. Writing that avoids the passive voice is not good writing.
- djacobs 16y agoYou're right about one thing: there is not much good writing out there. The -ly rule is a pretty established one. These adverbs are almost always pointless. Other adverbs (for example "not" or "almost" or many of the adverb phrases) are more crucial to language and important for clarity.