Je suis Omar

That's not the passive I was referring to. See what S&W has wrought. And how did you forget to provide your source for your contention?

More deception, more sneakiness, BubberMiley. I asked you in the present time, using the present tense, and you either have very poor reading comprehension or you are being your usual deceptive self. I'll provide it for you again. You can even go directly to a website where you can view S&W's confusion yourself. Would you like me to provide you with a link as research doesn't seem to be to your liking? Understandably so.

A source for this BubberMiley contention would be in order. Why did you use the passive?

More BubberMiley deception and sneakiness. Not simply that he is Geoffrey Pullum but that he is a co-author of the CGEL. And what he did actually was show that the two grammatical boobs that you keep defending didn't know anything about English grammar. He also showed how they couldn't even follow their own sorry "rules". What is "a less grammatical form"? Are you sure it's the first rule? Do you have a source for that? Is that, perhaps, from BubberMiley's book of grammar? What then might footnotes be for? And quotation marks, and ... ?Why not stop being sneaky and just address Mr Pullum's comments, BubberMiley?

You keep making excuses for the two grammatical incompetents, Strunk and White, BubberMiley, and avoiding all the evidence from those who are competent in English grammar.

It should have been explained to folks here (by BubberMiley) that "your quote", which BubberMiley sneakily uses, refers to Geoffrey Pullum, one of of the co-authors of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. BubberMiley's fanciful tale, above, comes from BubberMiley, who eschews sources in favor of fanciful tales.

Is your old writer friend incompetent at grammar too, OGFT? Have you finished your "editing"? Did you advance any prescriptions/old wives tales?

BubberMiley: You really are trying to argue that it's ridiculous to suggest writing "The dentist removed the tooth" instead of "The tooth was removed by the dentist"? Omar: No, I'm not suggesting anything remotely as ridiculous as what you are attempting with your highly misleading nonsense. What I did say and quote was, Omar: That is clearly nonsense. Only those steeped in S&W's arrant nonsense ever raise this grammatical non-issue. Most of those S&W know nothings can't even correctly discern passives/actives. But the same thing can be said about any inappropriate bit of syntax. This nonsense non-issue has been addressed a number of times. But, once more: -------------- The passive is of course perfectly respectable, and there is no reason to try to avoid it. (To say that it shouldn't be over-used, or it shouldn't be used where it is inappropriate, doesn't distinguish it from any other construction or expression.) It would be quite peculiar for there to be a way of constructing clauses, well known to everyone, that was generally not appropriate for use. If everyone who understood how to use the language well could see that the passive was not fit to be used, its survival down the centuries would be almost inexplicable. http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/passives.html --------------------- BubberMiley: It's a suggestion. They are guidelines. Omar: Why are you having so much difficulty describing these guidelines, which have been morphing into suggestions, ... . The quote directly addressed your guidelines/suggestions and showed just how fatuous they are. They provide no guidance that anyone can use to discern when to use the passive or not.

BubberMiley: Now, what were you saying about incompetents who are clearly illustrating their deficient knowledge? Omar: I have spent considerable time describing these Strunk & White incompetents, BubberMiley, as has the folks who study these issues in depth, you know, linguists, grammarians, language scientists. It's abundantly clear who the incompetents are. They are those who refuse to directly quote, discuss and defend the crap they unthinkingly absorbed, which has now become for them, gospel. You still, after a great deal of prodding, haven't once described the SW guidelines for using this rule/guideline/prescription/old wives tale/abysmal piece of ignorance. Considering your highly misplaced passion, it must be that you have absorbed a number of these fictions/prescriptions/false grammar rules, that you are indeed a dyed in the wool Strunk &Whitian. As I have mentioned, this is so so sad, the fact that so many brains had to suffer through so many centuries of so much crap when there is so much that is truly fascinating about language and how it actually works.

Except of course we know that some people of some religions will actually kill you for thinking that you have a right to the wealth of your own country, for thinking that you have a right to elect your own leaders, for thinking that their children shouldn't be napalmed, carpet bombed, raped and tortured. The nerve of some people and some religions!!!

And a marvellous expression of American freedom of speech it was, behind closed doors, with massive police security!!

That might be possible if you knew how to debate. But it would be a laughably short debate. You still haven't explained how anyone could make use of S&W's "what has morphed from a rule to now become a recommendation".

="BubberMiley: #1, obviously. The second doesn't even say who removed the tooth. Omar: The first one doesn't say who removed the tooth either. Are you, as a budding young strunknwhitian, going to write a rule/recommendation against using the active voice without a proper name citing the lack thereof as too unclear. BM: Because, in the context of the writing, it was preferable or unknown what force was doing the action (e.g., removing the tooth), so a passive construction allowed them to avoid reference to it. Omar: Now, after you have once again so clearly set out just how silly the rule is, describe yours or S&W's rule for deciding which to choose, when to choose? BM:If there are too many and they are unnecessary, they do. Omar: That is clearly nonsense. Only those steeped in S&W's arrant nonsense ever raise this grammatical non-issue. Most of those S&W know nothings can't even correctly discern passives/actives. But the same thing can be said about any inappropriate bit of syntax. This nonsense non-issue has been addressed a number of times. But, once more: -------------- The passive is of course perfectly respectable, and there is no reason to try to avoid it. (To say that it shouldn't be over-used, or it shouldn't be used where it is inappropriate, doesn't distinguish it from any other construction or expression.) It would be quite peculiar for there to be a way of constructing clauses, well known to everyone, that was generally not appropriate for use. If everyone who understood how to use the language well could see that the passive was not fit to be used, its survival down the centuries would be almost inexplicable. http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/passives.html --------------------- BubberMiley: Your writing is too vague. What are you referring to by "them"? The native speakers? Strunk and White? The guidelines in their books? Strunk and White caution against such ambiguous construction. Omar: Right after you write, "If there are too many and they are unnecessary, they do", you come up with typical prescriptivist claptrap to try to buffalo folks. It won't work,BM. Anyone who has such a deep vested interest in trying to defend such obvious grammatical incompetents as S&W clearly illustrates just how deficient is their knowledge of the workings of the English language.

Why are you, the person who so diligently follows prescriptions designed to create clear, concise writing, ignoring the fact that you were wrong about OGFT's chosen line of work? You seem hell bent on producing here, everything but clear, concise writing, the very thing you mistakenly believe your prescriptive mentors exhort you to churn out.

You sound like a high school student parroting their teacher's "in your own words!"; "use your own words!"; ... . All the linguists I have quoted used "original words".

Omar: But that begs the question, why are you so studiously avoiding the experts while flailing about trying to defend the incompetents, Strunk & White? Omar: You have no position, BubberMiley. You admitted so in your first sentence. Why are you so petrified about providing S&W's guidelines for this downright silly prescription? BM: I'm defending the general advice that writing in the active voice is clearer and more interesting to read. Omar: Oh, so now it's general advice! Where are your "guidelines"? Even your "general advice" is vacuous. 1. The dentist removed the infected tooth. 2. The infected tooth was removed. Now which one is clearer, BubberMiley, 1 or 2? "... more interesting to read." Can you explain why scientists would write in a voice that was boring for them to read? Can you explain why native speakers, upon reading a passive sentence don't yawn and put the book down? Upon hearing a passive, don't fall asleep? Can you explain how native speakers, including you and all the other unthinking S&W acolytes, find them completely unremarkable and read right over them without even noticing? Can you explain how no native speaker ever follows this fatuous prescription, let alone knows anything about it until they are exposed to the grammar geniuses, S&W? Can you explain why, if this was a real rule of English grammar, all the native speakers of English prior to its introduction, around the early part of the 20th century, never followed it or even knew of its existence? You are doing an excellent job of illustrating just how fatuous these silly prescriptions are.

I see now that reading comprehension is your problem. That is not OGFT's "chosen line of work". He specifically said that it was for beer money. He has in other threads described other work. But you certainly are his equal in inane, diversionary tactics.

That's a given, BubberMiley. I'll admit that I'm not one of the authors of the CGEL or LGSWE. But that raises the question, why are you so studiously avoiding the experts while flailing about trying to defend the incompetents, Strunk & White?

BubberMiley: No, you are advancing S&W's competence as incompetence, so you should describe and show how their guidelines work. Omar: I did show how their guidelines don't work, with my own explanations and some from noted language scientists, grammarians and linguists. All of which you studiously and continuously ignore. BubberMiley: Absolutely nothing, but I'm not debating with articles. If you want to make a point, make it. Don't throw out a link and hope it advances your point. Omar: One doesn't debate with articles. One debates the issues found within articles, grammar books, scientific studies, ... that are highly pertinent and right on topic, of the very thing that is under discussion. Your point is fatuous. You don't want to address arguments from experts in the field, from articles you won't read, that are pointedly on the topic at issue, but you want me to go thru the "toxic little compendium" to point out the two boobs' nonexistent guidelines; guidelines that they couldn't follow themselves. Guidelines that no human being, save those acting in a robotic fashion, and only after it was pointed out to them, could ever follow. The linguists at Language Log have numerous scholarly discussions on the incompetence of S&W. If you don't understand what they are saying, ask politely and I'll offer whatever assistance I can. You really have a limited understanding of how language works, BubberMiley.

Grand protestations aren't necessary, OGFT. Of course you wouldn't discuss it (grammar and/or the workings of the English language) here because you can't discuss it (the same) here because you are not at all competent to do so. Hence the title of the thread. I thought you said you were busy.

You are advancing S&W's incompetence as competence so you describe and show how their little guidelines work. Could you explain what you have against scholarship? You even refuse to discuss S&W, your own two grammatical incompetents' guidelines to using the passive.

Typical diversionary OGFT tactics. That time could be immensely shortened if you had been taught anything or learned anything pertinent about English grammar. Your extreme reluctance to discuss English grammar, the English language or even to provide examples of your "corrections" illustrates that in your life you have had minimal active exposure to how language works.

This also illustrates your ignorance on language. Writing is not innate but language and grammar is. We know that even children know how to structure complex sentences because they regularly do it. We know that people know how to use the passive because they regularly do it in speech without ever having been exposed to those grammatical giants, S&W, or their "toxic little compendium". They do it without having the foggiest notion, in a conscious sense, of what the passive is, or of even being able to identify the passive, just like S&W weren't able to identify passives or keep from using them in the natural way their grammars instructed them to do so. Wilber and OGFT disapprove of your childish use of emoticons. They believe that you should be able to express yourself in complete sentences.

Okay. We can accept that being dishonest causes you no concern. Knock yourself out, OGFT.

BubberMiley: Strunk and White have already set out clear guidelines for when the passive voice should be avoided. Using your own words, tell me how these guidelines fail? --------------- The onus is on you to set out these "clear" guidelines and show how well they worked to keep the grammatical incompetents, S&W, from frequently breaking their own "clear" guidelines.