Je suis Omar Posted May 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) BubberMiley: They (Strunk & White) advised avoiding it (the passive) when the active voice can be used instead (and, yes, they provide plenty of guidance as to when this is appropriate). 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. The treatment of the passive is not an isolated slip. It is typical of Elements. The book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules. They can't help it, because they don't know how to identify what they condemn. "Put statements in positive form," they stipulate, in a section that seeks to prevent "not" from being used as "a means of evasion." "Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs," they insist. (The motivation of this mysterious decree remains unclear to me.) 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. The book's contempt for its own grammatical dictates seems almost willful, as if the authors were flaunting the fact that the rules don't apply to them. But I don't think they are. Given the evidence that they can't even tell actives from passives, my guess would be that it is sheer ignorance. They know a few terms, like "subject" and "verb" and "phrase," but they do not control them well enough to monitor and analyze the structure of what they write. - Geoffrey Pullum http://m.chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497#sthash.Y1Dfatha.dpuf Edited May 7, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 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. What is sneaky about referring to the quote you cited? Why am I the one who should have provided the source of your quote? And that's your rebuttal? The guy makes a strawman argument and your response is "But he's Geoffrey Pullum!" Why do you even try to debate yourself? Just copy and paste the complete strawman works of Geoffrey Pullum. Surely no one will dare question his wisdom! Oh wait. that's what you did. "They can't even tell the actives from the passives!" You just plagiarized his lines and put them in a less grammatical form. Use your own words, not other people's! That's the first rule of writing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) What is sneaky about referring to the quote you cited? Why am I the one who should have provided the source of your quote? And that's your rebuttal? The guy makes a strawman argument and your response is "But he's Geoffrey Pullum!"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". You just plagiarized his lines and put them in a less grammatical form. What is "a less grammatical form"? Use your own words, not other people's! That's the first rule of writing.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? Edited May 7, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 BubberMiley, on 06 May 2015 - 4:05 PM, said: Except that when S&W wrote their book, it was commonly being overused. People thought it gave their writing gravitas. (It was thought by many that the writing they produced was given a gravitas by this construction.) A source for this BubberMiley contention would be in order. Why did you use the passive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 Why not stop being sneaky and just address Mr Pullum's comments, BubberMiley? I did. I demonstrated how his portrayal of S&W's prescriptions on the passive voice was a strawman argument because S&W clearly indicated the passive voice is often necessary. You had no response to that but to cite Pullum's credentials. This is why I like to debate with real people and not articles, because real people can defend their arguments. Those who cut and paste arguments from somewhere else usually don't have much of a clue of what they're talking about. It's a shame Pullum isn't here to defend himself, because you're doing a piss-poor job of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Why did you use the passive? I rephrased the same sentence in the passive to show how awkward (but filled with gravitas) it is. Nothing gets by you! Edited May 7, 2015 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 I did. I demonstrated how his portrayal of S&W's prescriptions on the passive voice was ... . 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. The treatment of the passive is not an isolated slip. It is typical of Elements. The book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules. They can't help it, because they don't know how to identify what they condemn. "Put statements in positive form," they stipulate, in a section that seeks to prevent "not" from being used as "a means of evasion." "Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs," they insist. (The motivation of this mysterious decree remains unclear to me.) 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. The book's contempt for its own grammatical dictates seems almost willful, as if the authors were flaunting the fact that the rules don't apply to them. But I don't think they are. Given the evidence that they can't even tell actives from passives, my guess would be that it is sheer ignorance. They know a few terms, like "subject" and "verb" and "phrase," but they do not control them well enough to monitor and analyze the structure of what they write. - Geoffrey Pullum http://m.chronicle.c...h.Y1Dfatha.dpuf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 I rephrased the same sentence in the passive to show how awkward (but filled with gravitas) it is. Nothing gets by you! 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 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. Pullum based his argument on a strawman. I can't help it if you can't defend him and can only copy and paste what he has written. If you were able to create an original argument, you wouldn't find yourself in such an embarrassing situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Pullum based his argument on a strawman. I can't help it if you can't defend him and can only copy and paste what he has written. If you were able to create an original argument, you wouldn't find yourself in such an embarrassing situation.That's funny, BubberMiley. It's apparent why you have avoided, are avoiding, desperately and shamelessly, pointed discussion that illustrates the gross grammatical incompetence of Strunk and White. You're still using that same deception that you have become famous for. We aren't now talking about the quoted material where you mistakenly described Pullum's argument as a strawman. You simply didn't understand him. We are discussing new material, new issues that illustrate that S&W had no idea what they were doing because they were grammatical incompetents. That's largely been the problem with prescriptivists. That's why there's no one describing and defending the little rules they learned. Of course you are also avoiding providing your source, because sources are anathema to you; they could lead where you definitely don't want to go. And your own inability to recognize a passive. You most assuredly are a Strunk and White progeny. Edited May 7, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 If we are cutting and pasting arguments, here's a good summary of one of the many ways in which Pullum went horribly wrong. Pullum then goes to falsely claim that they misidentify the passive voice three out of four times. But they do nothing of the sort; what they give are not examples of passive usage, but examples of how transitive verbs in the active voice can be used: 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. There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground. --> Dead leaves covered the ground. The sound of the falls could still be heard. --> The sound of the falls still reached our ears. The reason that he left college was that his health became impaired. --> Failing health compelled him to leave college. It was not long before he was very sorry that he had said what he had. --> He soon repented his words. Here, as they say, they are giving (good) examples of how active transitive verbs can make sentences more forceful (or Strunk's strangely preferred "forcible"). This has nothing to do with the grammatical categories of active and passive voice of course, but as this is not a grammar textbook, and as stylistically this is the same thing of making sentences more direct, this is the logical place to put it in this famously terse book. It should be obvious that they aren't giving four examples of converting a sentence from passive voice to active voice. (Why would you expect them to do such a thing? Is this a grammar textbook for children? It is obvious that they assume the reader knows what the active and passive voice are; it probably never occurred to Strunk that someone who does not know may read his "little book".) The structure of the section is clear: first they say why the active voice is often preferable, then they show when it is not, then they move on to other related matters. They wouldn't have returned to harp on the first point again. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2909/what-s-purportedly-wrong-with-strunk-white-s-the-elements-of-style Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Of course you are also avoiding providing your source, because sources are anathema to you; they could lead where you definitely don't want to go. The source of my statement that many academic writers use the passive voice for added gravitas? That's common knowledge. Google "passive voice gravitas" and you'll find many people describing this phenomenon. But you shouldn't have put a comma before "because" there. Totally unnecessary. Edited May 7, 2015 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 We are discussing new material, new issues that illustrate that S&W had no idea what they were doing because they were grammatical incompetents. That's largely been the problem with prescriptivists. That's why there's no one describing and defending the little rules they learned. . What's funny is you think a small book on style is an all-encompassing grammar book. But when are you going to take the time to defend Pullum's strawman argument that S&W wanted to banish the passive voice from the language? You weren't able to google a suitable rebuttal that you could copy and paste? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 If we are cutting and pasting arguments, here's a Now this is truly a ROTFLMAO moment! Can you say "major hypocrite", BubberMiley? You are avoiding, with the same panache of a drowning man, the portions of S&W where G Pullum points out that they were grammatical incompetents who couldn't even follow their own rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 What's funny is you think a small book on style is an all-encompassing grammar book. No, anyone with an ounce of common sense wouldn't think that for a moment. It is sad how it has turned generations of Americans, and obviously some Canadians, into grammar dunces. How old did you say you were? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) You are avoiding, with the same panache of a drowning man, the portions of S&W where G Pullum points out that they were grammatical incompetents who couldn't even follow their own rules. If I have to debate with somebody else's writing, then so do you. That's not hypocritical because I admit it's a lazy way to debate in this forum. Pullum claims that the authors claim that "None of us are perfect" is a grammar mistake. Of course, since S&W is not a grammar book and its authors do not claim that anything in the book is a grammatical mistake, Pullum's claim is trivially false. (Indeed their only pronouncements explicitly on grammar seem to be to say that something is grammatical: they say of "A group of us taxpayers protested" that "The wording, although grammatically defensible, is rarely apt", and elsewhere, "There is nothing wrong with the grammar...") But I'll go further and note this on their section about "none": A plural verb is commonly used when none suggests more than one thing or person. None are so fallible as those who are sure they're right. (This is kind of tautologous anyway; none suggests a plural when used with "are".) http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2909/what-s-purportedly-wrong-with-strunk-white-s-the-elements-of-style Your advantage is that if you debate with this guy's points, I am capable of responding. If I counter Pullum's points, all I get are accusations of being sneaky and a summary of Pullum's resume. Edited May 7, 2015 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 No, anyone with an ounce of common sense wouldn't think that for a moment. It is sad how it has turned generations of Americans, and obviously some Canadians, into grammar dunces. That's amazing since it doesn't even prescribe grammar. But you should really try to defend Pullum rather than repeat the same thing over and over without any substance to back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 I particularly like this quote: Apparently, in the United States, this quirky little book has become "the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught to college students and presented to the general public". While I recoil in horror at such lunacy (if such a thing is indeed true), all of these seem failures of the education system to me. Blaming such misuse on the book itself, and calling its authors an assortment of names ("bumblers", "incompetents", etc.) is just mean-spirited. Funny that I need to provide a source when I say the passive voice adds gravitas, but Pullem doesn't need to back up his contention that S&W is "the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught to college students and presented to the general public." Especially since it isn't even a grammar book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 The source of my statement that many academic writers use the passive voice for added gravitas? That's common knowledge. Google "passive voice gravitas" and you'll find many people describing this phenomenon. And so you saw fit to plagiarize it? But you shouldn't have put a comma before because there. Ungrammatical??? Stilted for sure. It would be silly for anyone to take the advice of a S&W acolyte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) And so you saw fit to plagiarize it? I didn't plagiarize anything. I used my own words and my own impression of academic writing. Plagiarism is taking someone else's argument and pretending it's your own. This is usually exposed when you find you are unable to defend it yourself and finally must resort to citing it so you can use the real author's credentials as a defence. I'm still waiting for you to prop up the strawman, Mr. Pullum acolyte. Maybe a few posts of personal attacks will make you feel better. Edited May 7, 2015 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 So, to summarize, Pullum acknowledged that S&W works well as a style guide. He should have stopped there because that's all it is. He based the rest of his rant on the mistaken observation that it is a prescriptive grammar book, which it is not and does not try to be. Strunk himself acknowledged "the fallacy of inflexibility and the danger of doctrine" and how these "rules" can all be broken for better writing: "the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the reader will usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation." In that context, it's kind of ridiculous to nit-pick every phrase to say "OMG, they don't even follow their own rules!" Pullum bases his argument on the contention that this is a prescriptive grammar book that dictates sweeping, inflexible rules that all must follow. That wasn't the case, and so his whole argument (which I guess you feel is now your argument) falls apart. Oh wait, I almost forgot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.