Re: active vs. passive

Subject: Re: active vs. passive
From: Usha Manoj <usha -dot- manoj07 -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: Karin Matchett <wordcraft -at- karinmatchett -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:05:04 +0530

Dear All,
With regards to active and passive, I have a query and may be you can throw
some light on it.
I have usually encountered this problem when I drafted RFP or RFI.
Technical writing emphasizes on using active voice. However, in case of
proposals, where you talk about performing a particular action in case you
win the deal, the text is usually in future tense, for example, Company X
will be responsible to meet the SLA targets. How best can we avoid using
"will be" in the sentence. I have tried replacing it with "is" or "are"
depending on the context, but doesn't work in all cases. Please advise.
Regards
Usha

On 05-Aug-2017 8:04 PM, "Karin Matchett" <wordcraft -at- karinmatchett -dot- com>
wrote:

> I agree. In addition to needing a form of "to be," it needs an explicit
> subject.
> The question of active vs. passive doesn't even apply to this sentence
> because it's a command, which only has an implied subject of "you." My
> sense of why the question of passive voice is coming up is that there
> are different ways to phrase this sentence that are differently
> direct/indirect/confusing/obtuse/imprecise. These have a similar feel
> to active/passive, but they're not the same thing -- there's no
> overlap.
> Karin
>
> On 8/4/2017 7:23 PM, Robert Lauriston wrote:
>
> Since the subject specifically refers to active vs. passive, I'll
> repeat what I said in that long thread, only correctly (it has been a
> long and busy day):
>
> A phrase in passive voice has to have a form of the verb "be" and a
> past participle. There's more to it, but without those, it's not
> passive voice.
>
> Garner's "Modern American Usage" has good explanations for things like
> that.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and
> conte
> nt development | [1]http://techwhirl.com
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> References
>
> 1. http://techwhirl.com/
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and
> content development | http://techwhirl.com
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as usha -dot- manoj07 -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
> http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and
> info.
>
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online
> magazine at http://techwhirl.com
>
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public
> email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


Follow-Ups:

References:
"via" - why often verboten ?: From: Monique Semp
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Robin Whitmore
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: sharipunyon
RE: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Wright, Lynne
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: sharipunyon
RE: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Wright, Lynne
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Lauren
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Gene Kim-Eng
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Lauren
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Robert Lauriston
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Gene Kim-Eng
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Robert Lauriston
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Lauren
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Robert Lauriston
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Lauren
active vs. passive (was: "via" - why often verboten ?): From: Monique Semp
Re: active vs. passive (was: "via" - why often verboten ?): From: Robert Lauriston
Re: active vs. passive: From: Karin Matchett

Previous by Author: Re: Word tool/plugin recommendation?
Next by Author: Re: active vs. passive
Previous by Thread: Re: active vs. passive
Next by Thread: Re: active vs. passive


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads