TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: Passive Voice? in Scientific Writing: Explanation
Subject:Re: Passive Voice? in Scientific Writing: Explanation From:"Wayne J. Douglass" <wayned -at- VERITY -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 7 Nov 1996 12:27:57 -0800
At 11:25 AM 11/7/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Elaine et al
>I think that passive voice in general has had
>a bum rap. I think it has both very poor and very
>good uses. I think some of the
>required uses (as in scientific journal style) are
>among the very poor uses.
I quite agree. Reading stuff that relentlessly employs passive constructions
can cause a MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) Effect, but there's nothing
intrinsically wrong with the passive voice. If God hadn't wanted the passive
voice, we wouldn't have past participles.
--Wayne Douglass
===================================================
Verity, Inc. Email: wayned -at- verity -dot- com
894 Ross Drive Telephone: 408-542-2139
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Facsimile: 408-542-2040
===================================================
