quote:

---

Yes, fix the passive voice. But not at the expense of the mood, weight and feel of the sentence.

---

I was just razzing you a little, Jules, although while I was getting dinner last night I realized I hadn’t put a little winky face on my reply and hoped you wouldn’t take it wrong. I hope you didn’t.

quote:

---

"Inigo wounds the six-fingered man {in} each of the places he wounded him before he kills him"

---

How do you understand completely what’s going on here, even pronoun-wise? Did Inigo wound Six-fingers where Inigo had wounded Six-fingers before or where Six-fingers wounded Inigo before? Did Inigo wound Six-fingers before Inigo killed Six-fingers or did Inigo wound Six-fingers before Six-fingers killed Inigo? I’m guessing you’re seeing the confusion with “before.” Does “before” go with “{where} he wounded him before” or “{where} he wounded him, before he kills him.” Again, clarity rules.

I’m not sure what you mean, LordD. As we’ve established, passive voice isn’t taboo and actually has its uses. Dialogue would be one, since people speak like people speak, though the usual cleaning up should be done as for uhs and ums – a little reality goes a long way. Are you talking equal mixtures of active and passive?

quote:

---

WHICH and THAT are both relative pronouns--WHICH should be used only for inanimate objects (bricks, tables, pudding and, yes, hair), while THAT can be used for people, places or things.

---

NO--this is not right--you do not say The people that were in the room. It is The people who were in the room.

A general rule of thumb is to use that when it is a known thing, and which when it is a choice.

That and which are used when the antecedent is a thing and who with a person or persons.

• That is used only for restrictive clauses. It is used for both people and things.
• Which is used for non-restrictive clauses, but it is sometimes used in restrictive clauses. It is also used for both people and things
• Who is used for people, not things, though I suppose you could use it for things if you were being poetic or something.
  

quote:

---

I’m not sure what you mean, LordD. As we’ve established, passive voice isn’t taboo and actually has its uses. Dialogue would be one, since people speak like people speak, though the usual cleaning up should be done as for uhs and ums – a little reality goes a long way. Are you talking equal mixtures of active and passive?

---

I'm refering to narative. Dialog changes based on the person speaking even though I will agree that passiva and active voice would apply there also I am concerned with my story first.

If you can't get what you want in the narative then the dialog is not much of a concern.

If I sound a bit clueless when it comes to grammar...I am. It isn't easy trying to learn grammar after ignoring it for too many years. I have been getting by using the feel of it, but that only gets me in the readable catagory (which I will not complain about).

quote:

---

"In short, the passive may be used (I just used it) when the verb is unexciting and the agent unimportant or unknown. In good writing these conditions don't often occur, and that's why the passive voice is seldom used. (I did it again.)"

---

In fact, here are my first two sentences, adjusted for the sake of expediency:
"Maybe this excerpt will help. It is from a grammar book."
To get rid of the weak "is" -- and even the pronoun "it" ( ):
"Maybe this excerpt from a grammar book will help."

(Hmmm...is "will" a passive verb? I know it's an auxiliary verb...could be. )

Anyway, I dare say most writing will have some mixture of active and passive voice, but the more passive it has, the less punchy it'll be; the more active, the less boring. Remember, instruction manuals are written in passive voice.

[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited October 14, 2003).]

quote:

---

"...never use which to refer to persons."

---

A) That was the Lone Ranger.

B) The Lone Ranger is the person to whom you are making reference.

That has been used as an all-purpose relative pronoun since the beginnings of English, whereas the relatives which and who are much more recent additions, dating back to only the 1200s. Germanic languages use demonstratives as relatives, whereas Latin languages use interrogatives. Due to the influence of French on Middle English, English gained some more relative pronouns. Thus, who is also used as a relative pronoun for people, whereas that is the original all-purpose relative pronoun.

Kolona, it's easy to find sources that say that which and that should never be used for people, but the fact is that those rules are entirely made up. English speakers have always used that and which for people (as long as the words have been used as relative pronouns, anyway). The rules simply don't reflect any sort of reality. Even the people who advocate such rules are incapable of following them (in speech, anyway; with thorough editing, you can "fix" them all).

And now for passive voice . . .

There is no such thing as a passive verb. There are only passive constructions. The passive voice is the combination of a be verb and a past participle (the form that usually goes with a form of have, as in "have done"). Thus, "The ball was kicked" is passive, but "I have kicked the ball" is active. There are plenty of good reasons to use the passive voice, especially in situations like newspaper writing. You never read articles that say, "Someone robbed the First National Bank this morning." They'll say, "The First National Bank was robbed this morning," because the agent (the one who actually performed the verb) is unknown.

Also, is is not weak, per se. It's only weak if the construction is weak. But I can't think of any good examples right now, so I won't talk about that.

And I'd like to thank my wonderful wife, Brinestone, for backing me up.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited October 14, 2003).]

I am also a published writer, on-line and off. I also do lecturing on the editing process and preparing for publication. I have run workshops at writer's conferences. The latest was in Kaiserslautern Germany.

History does not matter as much as current usage or expected usage.

How about the comma before too at the end of a sentence? That has changed as well and now you will be boinked for using a comma before too at the end of a sentence.

For the general writer--those who are still struggling with almost basic grammar--who refers to people. That is not used to refer to people. The Lone Ranger example is neat--but then how else would you say it?

I cringe every time I see something like, The people that were in the main hall. Most editors I know would do the same thing.

My reference above was not made up either.

quote:

---

History does not matter as much as current usage.

---

Oh, no! Too, too?

Jon Boy - I think your description of the differences between which / that / who is possibly a little too technical. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is this:

'Which' (which you describe as non-restrictive) is used to provide additional information: "The hat, which was brown, fell from its stand".

'That' (which you describe as restrictive) is used to specify a particular object from multiple possibilities: "The hat that fell from its stand landed on the floor".

You don't really provide any information on when who is used, other than that it is used for people (persons, whatever!). My own experience suggests that either of the above uses can be applied to it.

It is, according to the MLA. The AP, too, if I remember correctly.

"Which" is generally used in non-restrictive senses, meaning that it just adds extra information. However, sometimes "which" is used in the same way that "that" is used. Then it's just an issue of whether there are commas to set it off. Thus, "The hat which was brown fell from its stand" means the same as "The hat that was brown fell from its stand," but it doesn't mean the same thing as "The hat, which was brown, fell from its stand." Does that make sense?

You're right about "who"—it can be used in either restrictive or non-restrictive senses.

daovinci, the new edition of The Chicago Manual of Style gives these rules about who, which, and that:

• Who refers only to a person.
• Which refers only to an animal or thing.
• That refers to a person, animal, or thing.
  

quote:

---

In the past which was also used of persons as well as things. . . .
It has now been replaced by who and that in this function, and is usually limited to things.

---