Grammar lesson!
Sorry for the long absence there (I know you missed me, wonderfulchild, but just remember you're the only one). But I'm back, and with a grammar lesson!
Isn't that fun?
Actually, it's 'cause one of my authors didn't know what I meant when I wrote "passive" as a note at the end of a few of their sentences. So, I wrote her a large explanation explaining the difference between active and passive and the cases in which passive voice can be used, etc. Then it occured to me that not everyone might know what passive voice means. So, here we go!
The Passive Voice: The Red-headed Stepchild of Grammar
Passive means that you were speaking in the passive voice. What that
means is that you put the object of the sentence first (that's the
thing receiving the action), then the verb (which is the action,
obviously), then the subject (that's the thing doing the action).
For Example:
The dog was hit by the car.
The car hit the dog.
The first is passive. The (object) (was acted upon) by the (subject)
The second is active. The (subject) (acted on) the (object).
Using the passive voice is looked down upon by writers and readers for
reasons that aren't really known. I believe it's because active is a
more direct way to state the sentence, so why not do it that way? Of
course, there are exceptions to every rule.
For example, if you want to obscure who did an action... Look at the
passive example. It could simply be written as "The dog was hit." This
is quite similar to the way people who address scandals speak, like in
the Watergate scandal with Richard Nixon (if you ever studied modern
american history, particularly politics -- this was in the 70s for any non-Americans that might stumble by). One of the things they said was, "Mistakes were made." Notice
they didn't say who made the mistakes -- they didn't have to. The statement was
passive and therefore grammatically sound.
Another reason why the passive voice might be used is that the passive voice might get a point across more
clearly than active voice.
For example:
The art students were taught that color-theory was not very important.
The art teacher taught the students that color-theory was not very important.
The first example is passive, yet it focuses more on the students, who
are actually the more important part of the sentence, 'cause they were
the ones who were taught incorrectly. Thus, the point was better made
by the passive voice.
The last exception is for poetic license and dramatic effect. Obviously,
"the boy was shot by the man" sounds a whole lot my dramatic than "The
man shot the boy" because you are emphasizing the boy's plight, even
though the point is pretty well put out by both sentences.
In any case, most of your sentences should be active voice. Passive voice gets tiring to read because the brain has to resort the message it's receiving.
Um. QED?
Isn't that fun?
Actually, it's 'cause one of my authors didn't know what I meant when I wrote "passive" as a note at the end of a few of their sentences. So, I wrote her a large explanation explaining the difference between active and passive and the cases in which passive voice can be used, etc. Then it occured to me that not everyone might know what passive voice means. So, here we go!
The Passive Voice: The Red-headed Stepchild of Grammar
Passive means that you were speaking in the passive voice. What that
means is that you put the object of the sentence first (that's the
thing receiving the action), then the verb (which is the action,
obviously), then the subject (that's the thing doing the action).
For Example:
The dog was hit by the car.
The car hit the dog.
The first is passive. The (object) (was acted upon) by the (subject)
The second is active. The (subject) (acted on) the (object).
Using the passive voice is looked down upon by writers and readers for
reasons that aren't really known. I believe it's because active is a
more direct way to state the sentence, so why not do it that way? Of
course, there are exceptions to every rule.
For example, if you want to obscure who did an action... Look at the
passive example. It could simply be written as "The dog was hit." This
is quite similar to the way people who address scandals speak, like in
the Watergate scandal with Richard Nixon (if you ever studied modern
american history, particularly politics -- this was in the 70s for any non-Americans that might stumble by). One of the things they said was, "Mistakes were made." Notice
they didn't say who made the mistakes -- they didn't have to. The statement was
passive and therefore grammatically sound.
Another reason why the passive voice might be used is that the passive voice might get a point across more
clearly than active voice.
For example:
The art students were taught that color-theory was not very important.
The art teacher taught the students that color-theory was not very important.
The first example is passive, yet it focuses more on the students, who
are actually the more important part of the sentence, 'cause they were
the ones who were taught incorrectly. Thus, the point was better made
by the passive voice.
The last exception is for poetic license and dramatic effect. Obviously,
"the boy was shot by the man" sounds a whole lot my dramatic than "The
man shot the boy" because you are emphasizing the boy's plight, even
though the point is pretty well put out by both sentences.
In any case, most of your sentences should be active voice. Passive voice gets tiring to read because the brain has to resort the message it's receiving.
Um. QED?