Re: passives, etc.

Subject: Re: passives, etc.
From: Sumithra Jagannath <sumithra -at- CRIM -dot- CA>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 14:36:26 EST

In article "passives, etc.", Michael Spooner <MSPOONER -at- CC -dot- USU -dot- EDU> writes
> Personally, I'd be loathe to lose the passive--or any other linguistic
> nuance--for fear I might need it later, maybe to cover my tracks. Therefore,
> I'm wary of the knee-jerk reaction against it that Shannon Ford mentions.
> I like Bonni Graham's instinct about the relative functions of active and
> passive. If you really want "authoritative" backing, Bonni, you could cite
> Eisenberg. She says essentially the same thing you do: active highlights the
> subject (of the action, that is), and passive highlights the object. So it
> should be a functional choice, not an aesthetic one.

Well said.

Sumithra Jagannath
sumithra -at- crim -dot- ca

Previous by Author: Re: thing/think: The final chapter (poll results)*Long*
Next by Author: Re: The use of indicate
Previous by Thread: Re: passives, etc.
Next by Thread: Re: passives, etc.

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

Sponsored Ads