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
===================================================


Previous by Author: Re: Passive Voice? in Scientific Writing
Next by Author: Re: Writing British English
Previous by Thread: Re: Passive Voice? in Scientific Writing: Explanation
Next by Thread: Re: Passive Voice? in Scientific Writing: Explanation


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads