Did teaching grammar make us stupid?

[On Guard for Thee]

Everything you ever wanted to know about the passive.

http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/passives.html

Would you say the folks who flew the planes into the WTC were passive, or aggressive...

[BubberMiley]

Nobody ever said that using the passive voice is incorrect grammar. It is merely advice to young writers about how to make your prose more punchy. No one can deny that saying "I think" is preferable to "it is thought" unless you deliberately want to avoid identifying who is doing the thinking. The passive voice is useful for bureaucratic speech but otherwise it is recommended you speak in the active voice (I just can't help myself). You can cite all the articles you want that make arguments you can't, but ultimately yo're never going to make the case that consistently using the passive is good writing. Strunk and White were right.

[Je suis Omar]

Would you say the folks who flew the planes into the WTC were passive, or aggressive...

It could easily be argued that you know very little about English grammar, in an active, overt sense.

You've put the proof in the pudding by your strident avoidance of anything grammatical. The proof has been put in the pudding by your strident avoidance of anything grammatical.

[On Guard for Thee]

It could easily be argued that you know very little about English grammar, in an active, overt sense.

You've put the proof in the pudding by your strident avoidance of anything grammatical. The proof has been put in the pudding by your strident avoidance of anything grammatical.

Too busy on another website making money correcting grammar.

[Je suis Omar]

Nevertheless, Strunk&White are most famous for cautioning against using the passive voice. This is, for the most part, good instruction. It makes for clearer, less evasive writing.

Not "famous for", infamous for. Strunk and White were grammatical incompetents.

I then reminded everyone that Strunk and White's vile little compendium of tripe about style (4th edition, 2000, p. 18) says "Use the active voice", and adds some editorializing about how the passive is "less bold, and less concise", and if you leave out the agent it becomes "indefinite". They go on with some mealy-mouthed stuff admitting that they cannot say one must never use it; but their firm prejudice against it is clear.

Now, those who know me will be able to predict that I couldn't resist grabbing a copy of the just-mentioned pathetic booklet (it was hard to find one; Poser says he threw his away) and checking on whether Strunk and White managed to get to the end of the page without accidentally using a passive themselves. And of course they didn't, the bald-faced hypocritical morons. Within just a few lines, still talking about how bad the passive is, they write:

Many a tame sentence of description or exposition can be made lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice for some such perfunctory expression as there is or could be heard.

This, in addition to containing a passive clause (the one with be made as verb), reveals the interesting fact that they seem to think existential clauses like "There is a spider in the bathtub" are in the passive voice.

You know, I do try to stress the ignorance and inadequacy of Strunk and White as strongly as I can here on Language Log; but it never seems strong enough.

At this point Liberman came up with an idea for a further investigation. He grabbed a laptop (we keep stacks of them lying around in the Senior Writers' Lounge, like paper napkins) and did a quick count of the first 100 tensed verbs in E.B. White's introduction to Letters of E.B. White (1976). He found that 28 of them were copulas associated with adjectives or predicate nominals; 51 of them were active verbs (including quite a few not especially muscular specimens such as "felt lonely" and "came of landed gentry", where no passive counterpart exists); and 21 were passive verbs (in fairness, it should be noted that he counted "was born in Brooklyn" as a passive, which could perhaps be argued against).

This is either 21% passives (21/100) or 29% passives (21/72), depending on what you want to do about the actives that don't have a passive counterpart and the "be born" case.

In most cases, Liberman observed, the passive clauses could easily have been re-phrased to make the passives into actives, but White had chosen not to do it. For example:

"This company had a factory in Harlem, where the cases for uprights, squares, and baby grands were manufactured by a crew of beer-drinking Germans, skilled artisans. The actions (keyboard, hammers, dampers, etc.) were bought from a company that specialized in that and were installed at the Horace Waters factory."

Why not say, where a crew manufactured the pianos? Why not say, the Horace Waters company bought the actions from a company that specialized in that, and installed them at the Harlem factory? I'll tell you why. Because Strunk and White aim to tell you that you mustn't use passives; it doesn't apply to them. What a shameless, pontificating, ignorant, hypocritical, incompetent, authoritarian pair of old weasels they were.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/003366.html

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[BubberMiley]

It could easily be argued that you know very little about English grammar, in an active, overt sense.

I think you're deflecting in the hopes that your own lack of knowledge will be exposed. You can't even come up with an argument and, instead, just cite other people's writing in the hopes that they make an argument for you. The simple fact is it's good advice to write in the active voice when possible, and nobody ever said writing in the passive voice is grammatically incorrect. It's advice on style for university students. Of course it's not going to work in every instance and every context, but if it's followed generally, the students will find their writing to be less vague (I'm doing it again).

[Je suis Omar]

Too busy on another website making money correcting grammar.

But Mr Grammar Guru is unable to share his knowledge with us.

[BubberMiley]

Not "famous for", infamous for. Strunk and White were grammatical incompetents.

Use your own words, not others'. I can't debate with an article.

[On Guard for Thee]

But Mr Grammar Guru is unable to share his knowledge with us.

Much more rewarding sharing it through PayPal.

[Je suis Omar]

I think you're deflecting in the hopes that your own lack of knowledge will be exposed. You can't even come up with an argument and, instead, just cite other people's writing in the hopes that they make an argument for you. The simple fact is it's good advice to write in the active voice when possible, and nobody ever said writing in the passive voice is grammatically incorrect. It's advice on style for university students. Of course it's not going to work in every instance and every context, but if it's followed generally, the students will find their writing to be less vague (I'm doing it again).

Perhaps you could have OGFT check out your first sentence for you.

This beautifully sums up the ignorance, your ignorance, on language and grammar, BubberMiley. Native speakers already know when to use different grammatical structures and they know this from their innate knowledge of English grammar.

You provide, in what is simply a repeat of S&W's useless information, absolutely nothing in the way of rules for folks to decide when it's okay to use the passive.

You make the exceedingly ignorant assumption, as did S&W, that people can actively/consciously even detect/identify a passive construction.

S&W, themselves, didn't know passives from their heinies.

Set out clear guidelines for when the passive should be avoided.

This should be good.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Use your own words, not others'. I can't debate with an article.

Odd that, Bubber. The linguists at Language Log have no problem debating and pointing out the lunacies of S&W and their camp followers.

[BubberMiley]

This beautifully sums up the ignorance, your ignorance, on language and grammar, BubberMiley. Native speakers already know when to use different grammatical structures and they know this from their innate knowledge of English grammar.

Native speakers are often terrible writers. Your belief that everyone has an innate knowledge of how to structure complex sentences is proven wrong by many of the ones you have constructed here. 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?

This shall be ignored.

[Je suis Omar]

Much more rewarding sharing it through PayPal.

Seeing as how you admit that you are a grammatical incompetent in the active/conscious sense, might you not want to consider that you are ripping people off?

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[BubberMiley]

Odd that, Bubber. The linguists at Language Log have no problem debating and pointing out the lunacies of S&W and their camp followers.

But you do, which gets boring after a while.

[BubberMiley]

Seeing as how you are a grammatical incompetent in the active/conscious sense, might you not want to consider that you are ripping people off?

Might you debate the issue rather than worrying about how OGFT and I make a living? (BTW, I've never been a teacher. Don't have that kind of energy.)

[On Guard for Thee]

Seeing as how you admit that you are a grammatical incompetent in the active/conscious sense, might you not want to consider that you are ripping people off?

Nope. They are quite happy to pay. If you have a Paypal account I will be happy to correct yours as well.

[Je suis Omar]

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.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Nope. They are quite happy to pay.

Okay. We can accept that being dishonest causes you no concern.

If you have a Paypal account I will be happy to correct yours as well.

Knock yourself out, OGFT.

[BubberMiley]

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.

Nope. You started the thread. The onus is on you to show how they are incompetent in the first place. Use Your Words!

[Je suis Omar]

Native speakers are often terrible writers. Your belief that everyone has an innate knowledge of how to structure complex sentences is proven wrong

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.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[On Guard for Thee]

Okay. We can accept that being dishonest causes you no concern.

Knock yourself out, OGFT.

You can conclude whatever you like. You have come to some doozies on the WTC thread, but thats another issue. I have an essay to correct so I ll be busy a while.

[Je suis Omar]

You can conclude whatever you like. You have come to some doozies on the WTC thread, but thats another issue.

Typical diversionary OGFT tactics.

I have an essay to correct so I ll be busy a while.

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.

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

Why would I discuss it here in endless circles that is your style, when I can actually use it, and at the same time generate some beer money.

[Je suis Omar]

Nope. You started the thread. The onus is on you to show how they are incompetent in the first place. Use Your Words!

You are advancing S&W's incompetence as competence so you describe and show how their little guidelines work.

This was most unfortunate for the field of English grammar, because both authors were grammatical incompetents. Strunk had very little analytical understanding of syntax, White even less. Certainly White was a fine writer, but he was not qualified as a grammarian. Despite the post-1957 explosion of theoretical linguistics, Elements settled in as the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught to college students and presented to the general public, and the subject was stuck in the doldrums for the rest of the 20th century.

See more at: http://m.chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497#sthash.ZcOD5QSc.dpuf

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.

[Je suis Omar]

Why would I discuss it here in endless circles that is your style, when I can actually use it, and at the same time generate some beer money.

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.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar