Re: Why is Microsoft Word Complaining About This Sentence?

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:59:26 GMT, "*** Chambers"
<richard.chambers7@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrought:

alvinstraight38@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote

Word really does not like my writing. I have been writing a tech
document, and Word constantly complains about my sentences. The
explanation is "passive voice - consider revising". I really don't see
any problems with the tenses. For example, this sentence received the
grammar flag:

"This line tool is used for drawing horizontal or vertical lines on the
form".

Is there anything grammatical wrong with my sentence?

Nothing grammatically wrong. It is simply a stylistic issue, but an
important one.

There has been a split of opinion on the question of how important it is.
Some contributors (such as Robert Lieblich and his supporters) think that
the passive voice is universally acceptable. Other contributors, such as
myself, believe that the passive voice should be avoided wherever possible,
but without allowing the issue to become a fetish. And there are all shades
of opinion between these two views.

A few tips on the avoidance of the completely unnecessary use of the
passive:-

1. a. Passive. The variation of yy with xx is shown in Figure 7.
b. Active. Figure 7 displays a graph of yy against xx.
You can easily identify a writer who habitually overuses the passive, by the
force of habit which causes him to write 1a instead of 1b. Check some of
your old technical reports. If you are frequently writing 1a instead of 1b,
you have a problem that you need to correct.

I disagree. The reader doesn't want to know what's in Figure 7 but
where to find the graph -- not the same thing at all. This is actually
a good example of when I think the passive *is* preferable to the
active.

If the passive must be avoided at all costs -- albeit on purely
superstitious grounds -- then "For the variation of yy with xx, see
Figure 7" would at least keep the payload of the sentence up front,
where it belongs.


2. a. Passive. It was shown by Smith and Jones (1998) that ...
b. Active. Smith and Jones (1998) provided evidence that ...
This is another useful indicator of the over-use of the passive, similar to
item 1 above.

I agree. Dummy subjects like "it" are generally to be avoided.

3. a. Passive. The equipment was designed to ...
b. Active. We designed the equipment to ...
In a scientific report, you are writing about two separate, but connected
issues. Firstly, about the nature of the universe, or the aspect of the
universe that you are scientifically studying. Secondly, about your efforts
to measure and understand that aspect of the universe.
You can legitimately argue that the universe itself is not affected by your
attempts to measure it - in other words, it has its own sovereign existence
which would be exactly the same even if you had not been born, and even if
you had not undertaken to study it. Therefore, the use of "I" or "we" is
irrelevant to the description of this sovereign universe. In these
circumstances, the use of the passive voice is often a logical choice.
The second issue, about your attempts to measure the phenomenon, is much
more personal. The design of the measurement apparatus is all your own work.
So, why be shy about using "I" or "we" in your description of equipment
design? If you find that you are writing these sections of your papers or
reports unnecessarily in the passive, you have found another indicator that
you might be overdoing the passive.

I agree with this in principle, but not really in practice. Many
scientific journals insist on as impersonal a style as possible, so
peppering a paper with we's and I's may only serve to irk the editors
it's submitted to (oops, make that, "you submit it to"). They're the
editors and they get to determine the house style. Like it or lump it.

I intensely dislike some of the writing of lawyers, because of the twee
(designed to impress rather than inform) style that many of them use.

I used to dislike it intensely until I found myself dealing with a lot
of it in my work. I now actually prefer many of the twee formulas --
the notwithstandings and the hereinbelows and the in respect ofs --
because they brook no ambiguity. My view now is that it's just
job-specific jargon; and like most job-specific jargon it may be
annoying to lay readers (hi, IT! Hi, the military!) but it's not
usually intended for lay readers.

Scientific writing has a tendency to contain a similar tweeness, resulting
from the (often) gratuitous use of jargon, and the frequent overuse of the
passive. I prefer plain English, in both legal and scientific writing.

I prefer plain English too, but it'd be misleading to suggest to
writers drafting contracts or submitting papers for publication in
scientific journals should always use it, because -- unfortunately,
perhaps, but that's the way it is -- they'll just risk looking like
clueless amateurs.

--
THE

"Incompetence reins." -- Oliver North
.