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.
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.