Re: active vs. passive

Subject: Re: active vs. passive
From: Karin Matchett <wordcraft -at- karinmatchett -dot- com>
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 06:36:32 -0500

Lauren, I completely agree with the distinctions you're drawing between
passive voice and other passive attributes, and it's helpful to get the
terminology straight. In this case, what if the identity of the thing
creating the directory isn't relevant to the reader? It seems to me
that this way of using "to be" has the benefit of limiting the moving
parts discussed to those the reader needs to know about, thus
decluttering the sentence.

On 8/8/2017 12:32 AM, Lauren wrote:

I was taught in a technical writing course many years ago to avoid
"to be" in technical writing. Now that I avoid it, I cringe when I
see it. "To be" is promissory, predictive, and passive. It is not
"passive voice" it passive or a passive sense, like timid. "To be"
is not in the moment and it asks the reader to wait for some future
event or to reflect on some other option. Technical writing should
address the matter at hand, so for that, "to be" should be avoided.
Proposal writing should be assertive and "to be" is timid.
For the example here, "the directory will be created," I would say
the "the system will create the directory," to avoid a passive sense
that is not necessarily a passive voice.
On 8/7/2017 3:11 PM, Robert Lauriston wrote:

Future tense is sometimes appropriate. "If the specified output
directory does not exist, it will be created automatically."
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development |


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 for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @


Re: active vs. passive: From: Bernd Hutschenreuther
Re: active vs. passive: From: Robert Lauriston
Re: active vs. passive: From: Peter Neilson
Re: active vs. passive: From: Robert Lauriston
Re: active vs. passive: From: Lauren

Previous by Author: Re: active vs. passive
Next by Author: Re: "via" - why often verboten ?
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