3 ms·

> use active voice, so it’s clear who is doing the action. Using the active voice is neither necessary nor sufficient for clarity as to "who is doing the actio

> use active voice, so it’s clear who is doing the action. Using the active voice is neither necessary nor sufficient for clarity as to "who is doing the action". Just make sure it is in fact clear, and write as understandably as you're able. It's true that sometimes people use the passive voice inappropriately, but that's no reason to mangle your writing to avoid it.

splittingTimes 9y ago
Of course these are just guidelines and you can make the passive voice work. However, I found the example given in the article pretty convincing: > Instead of “The factory was bombed by an F18,” military professionals would say, “An F18 bombed the factory.” That also rings true with (5) of George Orwells advice on good english writing [1] (1) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (2) Never use a long word where a short one will do. (3) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. (4) Never use the passive where you can use the active. (5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. (6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. === [1] George Orwell - Politics and the English Language http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/ http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...
- dllthomas 9y ago
  You're free to have your preference, but as pertains to clarity of agency neither of those is any better than the other. In fact as agency goes, it was not bombed "by an F18", it was bombed by a person using an F18, probably on orders (or by mistake when attempting to follow different orders) given by other people. I've certainly enjoyed Orwell's writing, but his recommendations mostly aren't very well thought out (and he doesn't follow them very closely himself, or probably his writing would be worse). See also: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=992 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=992

splittingTimes 9y ago

Of course these are just guidelines and you can make the passive voice work. However, I found the example given in the article pretty convincing: > Instead of “The factory was bombed by an F18,” military professionals would say, “An F18 bombed the factory.” That also rings true with (5) of George Orwells advice on good english writing [1] (1) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (2) Never use a long word where a short one will do. (3) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. (4) Never use the passive where you can use the active. (5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. (6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. === [1] George Orwell - Politics and the English Language http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/ http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...

dllthomas 9y ago
You're free to have your preference, but as pertains to clarity of agency neither of those is any better than the other. In fact as agency goes, it was not bombed "by an F18", it was bombed by a person using an F18, probably on orders (or by mistake when attempting to follow different orders) given by other people. I've certainly enjoyed Orwell's writing, but his recommendations mostly aren't very well thought out (and he doesn't follow them very closely himself, or probably his writing would be worse). See also: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=992 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=992