Josefa Wilson

If you are referring to linguistics or grammar, passive voice is when the subject of the
sentence is not what or who is doing the action. In active voice, the subject is doing the
action. My old writing professor said it is who's kicking whom.

The ball was kicked by me. (passive voice -- the ball (the subject) did NOT do the
kicking)
I kicked the ball. (active voice -- I (the subject) did the kicking)

This difference is VERY important in effective writing. I spent a half a year on it,
although "mommy brain" has deteriorated my writing. Good writing will consist of almost
all active voice. It causes less confusion and is less wordy.

Passive voice, however, is used when blame needs to be shifted. "The vase was broken." It
does not imply who broke it, so it sounds better when you tell mommy that as opposed to "I
broke the vase." Passive voice uses mostly the "to be" verbs --is, are, was, were, am etc.
These are non-active verbs. When editing, you should try to eliminate as many of these as
possible.

Hope this helps,
Josefa

ElissaJC@... wrote:

> What is Passive voice and active voice? I'm not sure I understand, Thanks


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/25/02 7:29:25 AM, learning_garden1@... writes:

<< If you are referring to linguistics or grammar, passive voice is when the
subject of the
sentence is not what or who is doing the action. >>

Josefa has explained it already pretty well!

A true-life story involving passive voice was about a car being wrecked.
Twenty years ago, Keith was living in Salt Lake City and a bunch of us were
meeting in Phoenix. He didn't show up. He and a friend named Margaret had
borrowed a car from another friend, and in the middle of the night "the car
wrecked."

Keith wasn't driving. But Margaret told her mom the WHOLE story without
mentioning that. Details! There were rocks in the road, the car was
raining, the police came, the oil pan was totally off, the transmission was
jammed, etc.

Margaret's mom called me to inquire about Keith, and said "This isn't the
first accident Keith has had, though is it?" It wasn't an inevitable
accident at all, and the driver had not responded well to the police (who
were already behind her with lights on before "the rocks were hit"), and who
kept trying to start the car even though nothing was happening and its fluids
were all over the road.

Amazing, how the blame was just swirled up into the wind.

<<Good writing will consist of almost
all active voice. It causes less confusion and is less wordy.>>

I've always believed this too.

But I think the point of the recommendation of passive voice here was
specifically to discourage people from being direct.

<<Passive voice, however, is used when blame needs to be shifted. "The vase
was broken." It does not imply who broke it, so it sounds better when you
tell mommy that as opposed to "I broke the vase." Passive voice uses mostly
the "to be" verbs --is, are, was, were, am etc.>>

Then there's conditional with passive. "Were the vase to be broken, we might
think someone did it.

I think this is the sort of passive voice some would prefer to have used here.

Kind of like a woman taking a doll to the doctor 130 years ago and pointing
at the place where it hurts. I think there is some desire to deflect talking
about real people and instances.

"Were a child being taught using traditional methods and a curriculum, some
people might think that it might not be the best way to come to an
understanding of unschooling."

Sandra

rumpleteasermom

I didn't recommend anything. I was merely talking about a
conversation elsewhere that found that people who spoke in active
voice were much more likely to be called abrasive and rude.
I personally tend to speak in active voice much more than passive. And
recognizing that that is why I sometimes offend people without meaning
to has been quite helpful lately. I thought others might be
interested in the information.

Bridget



--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:

> But I think the point of the recommendation of passive voice here
was
> specifically to discourage people from being direct.
>

rumpleteasermom

I didn't recommend anything. I was merely talking about a
conversation elsewhere that found that people who spoke in active
voice were much more likely to be called abrasive and rude.
I personally tend to speak in active voice much more than passive. And
recognizing that that is why I sometimes offend people without meaning
to has been quite helpful lately. I thought others might be
interested in the information.

Bridget



--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:

> But I think the point of the recommendation of passive voice here
was
> specifically to discourage people from being direct.
>

rumpleteasermom

>
> But I think the point of the recommendation of passive voice here
was
> specifically to discourage people from being direct.


This is the socond time I'm sending this, the first seems to have
gotten lost in cyberspace along with several other things I've sent.

I didn't recommend that anyone switch to passive voice. What I sent
was a post about a conversation had elsewhere about how
passive/active voice can affect how people view our posts. It has
helped me to at least understand how people can take offense at
something I thought was a perfectly innocuous comment when I wrote it.
I thought the information could perhaps be of interest to others
here.

Bridget

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:

>
> But I think the point of the recommendation of passive voice here
was
> specifically to discourage people from being direct.

Okay, this is my third try with this message, I hope this one doesn't
disappear in cyberspace.

I just want to make it clear that I was not saying anyone should
change their grammar style from active to passive voice. Heck, I
don't think I could with out a serious conscious effort!
I just found the information very helpful, to me personally, in
understanding why sometimes what appears to be a perfectly innocuous
remark is taken as something negative. I thought some others might be
interested.

Bridget

Tia Leschke

>
>
>I just want to make it clear that I was not saying anyone should
>change their grammar style from active to passive voice. Heck, I
>don't think I could with out a serious conscious effort!
>I just found the information very helpful, to me personally, in
>understanding why sometimes what appears to be a perfectly innocuous
>remark is taken as something negative. I thought some others might be
>interested.

I was. Thanks Bridget. I won't be trying to change to passive voice
either. Besides being too hard, all my other writing would be worse if I
got into that habit.
Tia

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island

Bonni Sollars

Bridget, I for one was interested in that information.
Bonni