3 ms·

Sure, you are right that this sentence is not a true passive voice. Instead, it implements the dummy subject [1] construction in English grammar, which shares c

Sure, you are right that this sentence is not a true passive voice. Instead, it implements the dummy subject [1] construction in English grammar, which shares certain qualities that leads to criticism of writing that uses a lot of the passive voice. E.g. There (dummy subject) <linking verb> <true subject> does not clearly imply who is criticizing what, and tends to diminish the magnitude or details of the nature of the criticism. I don't mean to defend Strunk and White any more than the next guy, but comments like this one make me think the pendulum can also swing back too far. If my pedantry annoys you, please feel free to disregard... I'm cringing at the realization that I just spent the last 5 minutes writing out this comment. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/dummy-subjects https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/...

fortran77 4y ago
You cited "British" grammar. That's all well and fine for you people, but here we use American grammar.
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  The construction: “There is a concern…” is perfectly normal in either place. It’s not a dialect difference, I don’t even really understand how you can make this point, unless I’m misunderstanding.
tgv 4y ago
But not mentioning the actor is what irked the commenters above me. The construction, on the other hand, doesn't matter. It can be done just as easily in an SVO sentence with a "real" agent: "Commenters raised concerns about ...". There, no information about the actor at all. But people like to add some technical detail to their argument, such as stating that the sentence is written in the passive voice, as if that proves their point. Strunk and White (and the countless people that mindlessly copied them) have made the passive voice the perfect candidate for this, to the point where it becomes an accusation, and any accusation of hiding agency is simply called "passive voice." But the analysis that the actor is missing is also shallow. In scientific communication, the actor often doesn't matter. It's the why, the how, the what a paper need to answer, not the who. The authors take responsibility for the (unconfirmed) fault. In that sense, there's little to critique about the passage, whereas the commenter makes it sound like a cover-up. If (s)he wants to know whose concerns they were, just say so, and state the reason, but don't hide it behind a (wrong) technicality. That just makes it look like the pot calling the kettle black.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  While no irking took place, it's also the case that even "commenters" would be more information than what we have. It could be the study authors who realised it, or publishers, or reviewers, or commenters. That would be some information. But we can get lost in technical subclassification, when saying something is written in the passive voice is not the most precise term, even when it's obvious what is meant. Strunk and White, and the countless people who've used their rules of thumb, have helped popularise common ways of identifying why communication is unsatisfying or vague, and how to fix them. But you saying pot calling the kettle black is also shallow. In no way was the comment written in the (right and true, or Strunk and White) passive voice, which would be the correct way to deploy that phrase. If you want to disagree, then do so, but don't hide behind a (wrong) idiom. That just makes a hot potato look like a piece of cake.

fortran77 4y ago

You cited "British" grammar. That's all well and fine for you people, but here we use American grammar.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
The construction: “There is a concern…” is perfectly normal in either place. It’s not a dialect difference, I don’t even really understand how you can make this point, unless I’m misunderstanding.

tgv 4y ago

But not mentioning the actor is what irked the commenters above me. The construction, on the other hand, doesn't matter. It can be done just as easily in an SVO sentence with a "real" agent: "Commenters raised concerns about ...". There, no information about the actor at all. But people like to add some technical detail to their argument, such as stating that the sentence is written in the passive voice, as if that proves their point. Strunk and White (and the countless people that mindlessly copied them) have made the passive voice the perfect candidate for this, to the point where it becomes an accusation, and any accusation of hiding agency is simply called "passive voice." But the analysis that the actor is missing is also shallow. In scientific communication, the actor often doesn't matter. It's the why, the how, the what a paper need to answer, not the who. The authors take responsibility for the (unconfirmed) fault. In that sense, there's little to critique about the passage, whereas the commenter makes it sound like a cover-up. If (s)he wants to know whose concerns they were, just say so, and state the reason, but don't hide it behind a (wrong) technicality. That just makes it look like the pot calling the kettle black.

robertlagrant 4y ago
While no irking took place, it's also the case that even "commenters" would be more information than what we have. It could be the study authors who realised it, or publishers, or reviewers, or commenters. That would be some information. But we can get lost in technical subclassification, when saying something is written in the passive voice is not the most precise term, even when it's obvious what is meant. Strunk and White, and the countless people who've used their rules of thumb, have helped popularise common ways of identifying why communication is unsatisfying or vague, and how to fix them. But you saying pot calling the kettle black is also shallow. In no way was the comment written in the (right and true, or Strunk and White) passive voice, which would be the correct way to deploy that phrase. If you want to disagree, then do so, but don't hide behind a (wrong) idiom. That just makes a hot potato look like a piece of cake.