Last week, we
explored the world of zombie rules. I think this topic is interesting because
people have such varied opinions about it. These rules can be a sore spot
because of pet peeves and perceived grammar rules. They can also be fun and
liberating for writers to discuss once they learn that these rules are dead (or
never existed). I am hoping you fall into the second category because today we
are going to be talking about two more zombie rules.
We've already discussed rules
concerning the beginning and end of sentences. Today's rules are focused on the
inner construction and voice of the sentence. The first zombie rule is about
splitting infinitives. This can be a tricky rule because some people find it to
be especially irritating in writing. Spoken English is another matter but, I
suppose people think less about words if they can't see them. If you're like
me, you become easily distracted by unique words or unusual phrases. My inner
grammar researcher can't resist. But I'm getting off-topic here.
An infinitive is a basic structure of
"to" and a verb. If you are involved with language learning at all,
you know that courses will often teach the infinitives of verbs followed by how
they conjugate in different situations. This zombie rule states that
"to" cannot be separated from its verb, e.g., He is beginning to heal
fully. In this example, "to heal" is the infinitive and
"fully" is the adverb. The infinitive is whole with the adverb on the
end. It could read like this: He is beginning to fully heal. Now the infinitive
has been split by the adverb. Do you notice something different when you read
it? Try rereading both sentences and see what stands out to you. The placement
of the adverb slightly changes the meaning of the sentence by putting emphasis
either on the verb or the adverb.
Why do so many have a problem with
split infinitives? This pet peeve can be traced back to the well-meaning
grammarians of the 1700s. Much like last week with the ending prepositions,
grammarians from this period desired to make English more like its root
language, Latin [1]. In Latin, it is wrong to split infinitives. It would be
more accurate to say impossible because Latin infinitives are not formed like
English ones [2]. Latin rules cannot always apply to English because English
has developed into a separate language. It has its own formations and rules
that need to be followed. The best solution then is to go ahead and split that
infinitive if it emphasizes accurately and sounds natural.
The second rule is one that has long
pervaded the writing territory. People have become increasingly busy. We've
somehow managed to become more efficient and have less time. Our language
reflects this change in society. English is an evolving language and an active
language deserves an active voice, right? Generations of English writers have
been admonished for using the passive voice. I am here to tell you that passive
voice is necessary and should be used.
A sentence can either be in the active
or passive voice. In the active voice, a sentence follows this construction: a
subject doing something, an active verb, and an object receiving the action.
For example: I write articles. It is simple, straightforward, and emphasizes
the doer of the action. On the other hand, the passive voice uses this
construction: a subject receiving the action, a passive verb formed by a
"to be" verb plus a past participle, and sometimes an object doing
the action. For example: The articles are written by me. The sentence is a
little longer now and it places emphasis on the object of the action. The
problem that grammarians and writers have with the passive voice is its more
complex structure and its allowance for vagueness.
Avoiding the passive voice is a zombie
rule because it is not a true grammar rule. It is actually a writer's preference
and writing style. Using a passive voice can be beneficial. The passive voice
is essential when the doer is unknown. You don't always know who stole the
neighbor's car. In that case, the passive voice makes it possible to tell
someone that the car was stolen without having to come up with a perpetrator.
A passive voice can also be useful for
certain types of writing. More technical writings such as scientific or medical
manuscripts need a passive voice to explain processes and formulas. In other
writings, emphasis on the receiver is important to make a point. If I want to
emphasize the type of writing I do, I would use a passive voice, e.g., The
articles were written by me. The noticeable part is "the articles." I
want people to know that those articles are my style rather than biographies.
That being said, it is important to note that the passive voice should not be
abused. By this, I mean purposely using a passive voice to hide information and
be vague. A classic example is a politician who says, "Mistakes were
made." It sounds like an admission of guilt but is refusing to take
responsibility.
Writers have a great deal of
flexibility in English. To get your point across, it is perfectly acceptable to
use both split infinitives and a passive voice. Although, you might want to
introduce one at a time. There's no point in provoking so-called grammar
enthusiasts. Clarity, consistency, and accuracy are the triple crown of
writing. If breaking a zombie rule or two helps you achieve these goals, then I
say start smashing.
[1] Erin Brenner, 2013, "Killing the Zombies:
Split Infinitives, ‘Hopefully,' and Singular ‘They'," Visual Thesaurus,
Accessed October 4, 2019,
https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wc/killing-the-zombies-split-infinitives-hopefully-and-singular-they/.
[2] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment