For the linguistic pedants!

[eastwestdivide]

That's passive voice. It is not grammatically wrong, but active voice is preferred in most contemporary writing - literary works excepted.

Half an hour already and it's not been noticed that "active voice is preferred" is itself in the passive voice. 

 

(or is it me who deserves a "whoosh" icon for missing the deliberate irony?)

[Oldddudders]

"So I'm told" is wonderfully vague, I always feel. I use it a lot.

[petethemole]

"They" do exist.........

 

and they are out to get you...

[wombatofludham]

I think the "active voice" is only preferred by Micro$haft word processors, and idiotic branding/image consultants at large companies.  I was always taught to write in the "passive voice" when writing official letters or reports and continue to do so.  The use of an "active voice" in official documentation I personally find unprofessional and patronising.  The writer is assuming I have the reading age and linguistic ability of a mentally deficient orang-utan and need to be spoon-fed information in a friendly, cuddly style which they hope will leave me feeling all warm and positive about their employer.  It will never work.  I want complex sentences full of impersonal vocabulary which indicate I am reading a professional, business correspondence and not a note to the milkman, and will respond likewise if a response is necessary.

 

Mind you I'm finding writing in the "passive" difficult in Welsh.

[griffgriff]

"They" do exist.........

Are we talking red, blue or maroon box models here?

[BoD]

Ah ha....but that isn't the proper saying, which is 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'....

Which makes sense....

To someone, somewhere, I suppose.

So they say .........

[Ian J.]

Many scientific papers are written in passive voice in order to reduce the impression that the information in them is opinion rather than fact. That doesn't preclude the very real possibility that the 'facts' are in fact 'opinions'...

[RhBBob]

Many scientific papers are written in passive voice in order to reduce the impression that the information in them is opinion rather than fact. That doesn't preclude the very real possibility that the 'facts' are in fact 'opinions'...

 

Or possibly.....

 

"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." - T.S. Eliot

[Ozexpatriate]

I think the "active voice" is only preferred by Micro$haft word processors

By default, Microsoft Word does not flag "passive voice". There is a setting for it under 'style' (not grammar), but it's not turned on by default. You have to select "grammar & style" for checking which will then turn on "passive voice". You can turn it off and still check "grammar & style".

 

Technical papers eschew the use of the first person, which is often why they are couched in passive voice. It's not always necessary and active voice doesn't have to sound like "Dick and Jane see Spot run."

 

There is a place for passive voice, but it often leads to tortuous or even tortured circumlocutions. As such, it is beloved by politicians.

 

Which leads us to this satirical gem:

 

The identity of the official whose alleged responsibility for this hypothetical oversight has been the subject of recent discussion is not shrouded in quite such impenetrable obscurity as certain previous disclosures may have led you to assume, but, not to put too fine a point on it, the individual in question is, it may surprise you to learn, one whom your present interlocutor is in the habit of defining by means of the perpendicular pronoun.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Anyone else share my visceral loathing of the phrase 'S/he turned round and said...'

 

Why do people say this?  It makes me cringe.

[Pacific231G]

Anyone else share my visceral loathing of the phrase 'S/he turned round and said...'

 

Why do people say this?  It makes me cringe.

I don't think people do say it because it's not pronouncable which is why I also dislike it when I see it written down.

I would normally say and write  "They turned round and said...." using they as a singular. I know that a lot of people dislike that and regard "they" as a purely plural word but it does seem a useful follow on from the accepted singular use of "them" as in: 

There's a man at the door- ask him in.

There's a woman at the door- ask her in.

There's someone at the door- ask them in.

There are some people at the door- ask them in.

 

I think the problem is that English grammar was codified (by those who really did think English could be reduced to a set of permanently fixed formal rules) at a time when women were not thought to be part of public or business life. It was quite acceptable to begin a letter to an unknown individual with Dear Sir,  or Dear Sirs when writing to an organisation. Presumably the assumption was that any woman in a position to receive such a letter would be flattered to be addressed as Dear Sir. Fortunately we've moved on from such absurd notions but we don't yet have the language to accomodate that change. Dear Sir or Madam is far too officious and formal but we don't have an alternative that accepts the reality that we may be addressing someone of either gender.

This also leads to absurdities such as "Madam Chairman" when nobody says "Sir Chairman" and "Chair" is in any case a perfectly good neutral term or "The Lady Mayor" instead of simply "The Mayor". These all of course assume that there's something slightly odd about a woman holding such an office. 

[edcayton]

My two pet hates-"he/she goes" and "I can assure you".

 

My favourite, used to wind my son up-"it's a well-known fact">

 

Ed

[TheQ]

Chair" is in any case a perfectly good neutral term"

I HATE the term Chair, Chair to me is something you sit on, to me, Chairman is male or female

[pointstaken]

What about "Dear Cur" ?

 

Dennis

[Pacific231G]

Chair" is in any case a perfectly good neutral term"

I HATE the term Chair, Chair to me is something you sit on, to me, Chairman is male or female

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. For me chairman does imply that it's a role normally carried out by a man. I hate it when people still insist on calling me the chairman when I've made it clear that I choose the term chair, This was particularly true in one case when my predecessor and successor were both women and and also preferred to be the Chair. I don't think it's chance that the two people who insisted on calling me the Chairman were the same people who'd made it abundantly clear that they didn't think my predecessor could possibly be up to the job because she is a woman. 

 

Chair has long been used in academic circles as in the Professor holding the Chair in Physics and I've not seen too many of them walking around with chairs in their hands.

[wombatofludham]

I think the problem is that English grammar was codified (by those who really did think English could be reduced to a set of permanently fixed formal rules) at a time when women were not thought to be part of public or business life. It was quite acceptable to begin a letter to an unknown individual with Dear Sir,  or Dear Sirs when writing to an organisation. Presumably the assumption was that any woman in a position to receive such a letter would be flattered to be addressed as Dear Sir. Fortunately we've moved on from such absurd notions but we don't yet have the language to accomodate that change. Dear Sir or Madam is far too officious and formal but we don't have an alternative that accepts the reality that we may be addressing someone of either gender.

This also leads to absurdities such as "Madam Chairman" when nobody says "Sir Chairman" and "Chair" is in any case a perfectly good neutral term or "The Lady Mayor" instead of simply "The Mayor". These all of course assume that there's something slightly odd about a woman holding such an office. 

 

Actually, when I started out in Local Government one very dear lady councillor, traditional old Labour, very left wing but not in the then trendy Militant wing, gently corrected a new senior officer who referred to her as "Chair" pointing out she wasn't an item of furniture and preferred "Madam Chairman".  Ever since I have always referred to female "chairs" as Madam Chairman and have never, ever been accused of sexism or being patronising - and I have worked in some so called "looney leftie" authorities in my time.  Without exception the term has never been questioned, challenged or accused of absurdity.  I think people who accuse language of being "sexist" in such circumstances are missing the point - "Madam Chairman" is respectful, but also highlights that the woman in charge of the meeting is challenging sexual stereotypes, being in a role that when the word was first coined she would not have held.  In any case, there are many job descriptors in the English language which are sexually defined by historical gender based discrimination, some of which are easily changed to something more accurate ("fireman" to "firefighter" for example) others not so easily changed - and changing "chairman" to "chair" I would suggest is wrong, even if I agree in logical terms it is a bit daft - but since when has language been logical? 

 

Obsessing about such things actually deflects attention from the real issue and gives rags like the Daily Nazi a chance to bleat on about "political correctness" instead of addressing the real issue of continuing gender inequality.  Changing a word doesn't remove the problem, despite what some might think.

 

Plus I personally detest being called "chair" when I adopt that role - although I also hate being called "Sir" in shops as I have never been touched by Brenda's sword.

[Pacific231G]

Actually, when I started out in Local Government one very dear lady councillor, traditional old Labour, very left wing but not in the then trendy Militant wing, gently corrected a new senior officer who referred to her as "Chair" pointing out she wasn't an item of furniture and preferred "Madam Chairman".  Ever since I have always referred to female "chairs" as Madam Chairman and have never, ever been accused of sexism or being patronising - and I have worked in some so called "looney leftie" authorities in my time.  Without exception the term has never been questioned, challenged or accused of absurdity.  I think people who accuse language of being "sexist" in such circumstances are missing the point - "Madam Chairman" is respectful, but also highlights that the woman in charge of the meeting is challenging sexual stereotypes, being in a role that when the word was first coined she would not have held.  In any case, there are many job descriptors in the English language which are sexually defined by historical gender based discrimination, some of which are easily changed to something more accurate ("fireman" to "firefighter" for example) others not so easily changed - and changing "chairman" to "chair" I would suggest is wrong, even if I agree in logical terms it is a bit daft - but since when has language been logical? 

 

Obsessing about such things actually deflects attention from the real issue and gives rags like the Daily Nazi a chance to bleat on about "political correctness" instead of addressing the real issue of continuing gender inequality.  Changing a word doesn't remove the problem, despite what some might think.

 

Plus I personally detest being called "chair" when I adopt that role - although I also hate being called "Sir" in shops as I have never been touched by Brenda's sword.

Surely the most respectful approach is to simply use the term that the person themself prefers. So, for example, don't describe a female actor as an actress if she refers to herself as an actor but do accept that most female television film cameramen seem to prefer that term but some may not. I agree that "political correctness" can simply be a weapon for an insider group in the know to disempower outsiders and that it may well be used to deflect attention from the real issues. However, in the context I'm familiar with Madame Chairman would be over formal and Chair is accepted.

 

My pet hate is when people try so hard to use "correct" English that they end up mangling it such as in using myself when they mean me or yourself when they mean you.  

[PGC]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. For me chairman does imply that it's a role normally carried out by a man. I hate it when people still insist on calling me the chairman when I've made it clear that I choose the term chair, This was particularly true in one case when my predecessor and successor were both women and and also preferred to be the Chair. I don't think it's chance that the two people who insisted on calling me the Chairman were the same people who'd made it abundantly clear that they didn't think my predecessor could possibly be up to the job. 

Chair has long been used in academic circles as in the Professor holding the Chair in Physics and I've not seen too many of them walking around with chairs in their hands.

 

In a similar vein, desk has long been used in musical circles to describe two string players in an orchestra, as in 1st Desk of 1st Violins. But I've never seen an actual desk in the string section of an orchestra!

 

Phil

[The Lurker]

My pet dislike is the use of the continuous tense in a past situation (beloved of footballers but used in lots of places, and for many years too). It's probably not incorrect; I just don't like it!

 

I find interesting that one of the differences between English English and American and Australian English occurs when talking about teams. We'd say "England are a distinctly average cricket team" whereas the Aussies would use "is" on the basis that England and indeed team are singular. Mind you, they'd probably not be so polite as to use "distinctly average" either when describing the England cricket team. Or "England cricket team".

[bluebottle]

. . . . . . . .

 

My pet hate is when people try so hard to use "correct" English that they end up mangling it such as in using myself when they mean me or yourself when they mean you.  

 

An ageing Highlandman I worked with often used those terms in informal situations; as in "Myself will take care of that." and "Ah, it's yourself." I suppose that that reflected a Gaelic speaker's punctilliousness in avoiding the indecorously direct "I" and "you". I found this quite endearing.

When speaking to my neighbours , I often use "non-standard" grammatical forms, and I've noticed that some of them seem to try to speak "correctly" (I pass as well-spoken around here). As ma auld granny yased tae say; "Ye speak so as folk wull understand whit ye're sayin' "

[shortliner]

And there again you get the question to the wifie - "Would himself be available?" or answering the telephone "Is that himself speaking?" or the classic from a long ago Knorr stock-cube advert on the television - "herself went all the way tae In-va-ness? - fae a Chucken? - it must be love!" - herself is actually at a hen party with male strippers!

[Ozexpatriate]

Chair" is in any case a perfectly good neutral term"

I HATE the term Chair, Chair to me is something you sit on, to me, Chairman is male or female

"Cathedra" was good enough for medieval bishops.

[Ozexpatriate]

I find interesting that one of the differences between English English and American and Australian English occurs when talking about teams. We'd say "England are a distinctly average cricket team" whereas the Aussies would use "is" on the basis that England and indeed team are singular.

Ah the confusion that is collective nouns. (Confusion being the singular object of that sentence.) 

 

There are colloquial examples of even mixing the singular/plural. We could apply the same rules to a collective noun like a company, say "Hornby".

 

Hornby makes model trains. They can't sort out their supply chain.  (Singular in the first, plural in the second.)

 

It is probably not grammatically correct (certainly not to mix them) but you can make a strong argument for both. "It can't sort out its supply chain." sounds impersonal when we know the collective noun is about people and we don't use "it" for people.

 

You could argue "Hornby make model trains." as correct, but expanding it to "Hornby PLC is a listed, public company that makes model trains." is clearly not wrong.

 

Another example:

 

The Hornby marketing team is a group of (insert your favourite descriptive noun here).  Team being singular.

The Hornby marketing team are a group of (insert your favourite descriptive noun here). The members of the team being implicitly plural.

[TheQ]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. For me chairman does imply that it's a role normally carried out by a man. I hate it when people still insist on calling me the chairman when I've made it clear that I choose the term chair, This was particularly true in one case when my predecessor and successor were both women and and also preferred to be the Chair. I don't think it's chance that the two people who insisted on calling me the Chairman were the same people who'd made it abundantly clear that they didn't think my predecessor could possibly be up to the job because she is a woman. 

 

Chair has long been used in academic circles as in the Professor holding the Chair in Physics and I've not seen too many of them walking around with chairs in their hands.

As a chairman of a UK / world sailing class association I normally respond to  Q or  Queren,   Starboard!!! ,  Water Please!!!, but some times to, get out of my way!!! (Swearing would be unsportsman like behaviour and protestable.)

[Edwin_m]

 "It can't sort out it's supply chain."

Please, in this thread above all, can we understand the difference between "it's" and "its"! 

 

I'm not getting at you in particular; it's probably the number one mistake made on the Internet!