Quote from the article: ----------------------- "What concerns me is that the bias against the passive is being retailed by a pair of authors so grammatically

Quote from the article: ----------------------- "What concerns me is that the bias against the passive is being retailed by a pair of authors so grammatically clueless that they don't know what is a passive construction and what isn't. Of the four pairs of examples offered to show readers what to avoid and how to correct it, a staggering three out of the four are mistaken diagnoses. "At dawn the crowing of a rooster could be heard" is correctly identified as a passive clause, but the other three are all errors: "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" has no sign of the passive in it anywhere." What they wrote in the book: ---------------------------- (section called "Use the active voice", after examples of passive voice) 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 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. (link: http://tinyurl.com/cpnsxd http://tinyurl.com/cpnsxd) Quote: ------ "And then, in the very next sentence, comes a negative passive clause containing three adjectives: "The adjective hasn't been built that can pull a weak or inaccurate noun out of a tight place." That's actually not just three strikes, it's four, because in addition to contravening "positive form" and "active voice" and "nouns and verbs," it has a relative clause ("that can pull") removed from what it belongs with (the adjective), which violates another edict: "Keep related words together." ... "Keep related words together" is further explained in these terms: "The subject of a sentence and the principal verb should not, as a rule, be separated by a phrase or clause that can be transferred to the beginning." That is a negative passive, containing an adjective, with the subject separated from the principal verb by a phrase ("as a rule") that could easily have been transferred to the beginning. Another quadruple violation. ------------------ Exactly! That's the beauty of Strunk & White -- and here I link to John Gruber: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/03/24/language-log-strunk-and-white http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/03/24/language-log-str... The critic just doesn't get it. Quote: ------ Simple experiments (which students could perform for themselves using downloaded classic texts from sources like http://gutenberg.org http://gutenberg.org) show that Strunk and White preferred to base their grammar claims on intuition and prejudice rather than established literary usage. Consider the explicit instruction: "With none, use the singular verb when the word means 'no one' or 'not one.'" Is this a rule to be trusted? Let's investigate. * Try searching the script of Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest (1895) for "none of us." There is one example of it as a subject: "None of us are perfect" (spoken by the learned Dr. Chasuble). It has plural agreement. * Download and search Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897). It contains no cases of "none of us" with singular-inflected verbs, but one that takes the plural ("I think that none of us were surprised when we were asked to see Mrs. Harker a little before the time of sunset"). * Examine the text of Lucy Maud Montgomery's popular novel Anne of Avonlea (1909). There are no singular examples, but one with the plural ("None of us ever do"). ------ My Russian language teacher said (Russian is my native language): don't try to write like the one who is a master in language that ignores the rules -- rules are not for them. They are for you until you master the language. Quote: ------ Geoffrey K. Pullum is head of linguistics and English language at the University of Edinburgh and co-author (with Rodney Huddleston) of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Cambridge University Press, 2002). ----- Ah, OK. That's the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. (No, seriously, British English is different from... sorry, different than American English.)