What Everybody Knows

[starshipcat]

The more I think about the pronouncement that the word "was" automatically makes a sentence passive voice, the more it bothers me. Not just the fact that it's bad linguistics, not just the fact that, when coupled with the idea that passive voice is inherently bad, it cuts off a whole range of constructions that aren't passives, particularly the

Comments

[whswhs]

Years and years ago, I pointed out to a friend that the usage "with Scott and I" was grammatically incorrect, because "with" required "me." He became seriously angry and rejected what I said, because other people had corrected him when he used the form "with Scott and me."

I have been exposed to some of the writing of Bill Wilson, the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. I don't like his style: He tends to use multiple different words for the same concept, which I think invites people to imagine that he intends different meanings and even to confabulate specious distinctions. I've been told that when he was taught composition, such "elegant variation" was considered good style; I consider it the reverse!

On the other hand, of course we could write in the stripped down, minimalist style you describe, but we already have Ernest Hemingway . . .

[starshipcat]

Two more excellent examples of following a rule straight off a cliff because the reasons for the rule aren't understood.

I remember a well-meaning critiquer giving me a huge list of synonyms for "boat," clearly copied from an online thesaurus - except they weren't interchangeable. A number of them were words for different kinds of small watercraft, and the same vessel couldn't be both at once.

[whswhs]

I do use a thesaurus as a tool. But I have looked at the synonyms it offers, and rejected all of them as not being the exact word I was looking for!