News to me. It's absolutely appropriate to use the examples given (so-and-so was sitting or running) if you're trying to express a past continuous action. The poster doesn't seem to grasp the actual concept of a passive verb.
Those who can do, shouldn't teach. But I see this confusion a lot at fanfic_rants, where I *expect* to find ignorance. (And people who haven't studied Latin, which is all that fixes English grammar in the heads of some of us.) Somehow the notion has got settled that 'was' is the sign of the passive and therefore you should avoid it.
And people who haven't studied Latin, which is all that fixes English grammar in the heads of some of us. English grammar, French grammar, grammar in general. I'd love to see Latin taught as an elective nation-wide! From what I've heard English grammar isn't really even taught anymore in school. =\
It looks like the oh-so-popular jump from "[x] is generally something to avoid, especially for people still finding their voice and learning the ropes" to "[x] is against The Rules and thus a sign of bad writing."
Except that 'I was sitting on the horse' is not the same at all as 'I was sat on by the horse.' You'd think she'd realize.
Certainly, passives are usually best avoided (except that I refuse to avoid them, because I like their magisterial tone.) But by her example I can say 'passives are usually best avoided' as much as I like. It's 'I was avoiding the passive' that's weak. Hnf.
no subject
no subject
no subject
English grammar, French grammar, grammar in general. I'd love to see Latin taught as an elective nation-wide! From what I've heard English grammar isn't really even taught anymore in school. =\
no subject
Though #4 is a pretty good principle.
no subject
Certainly, passives are usually best avoided (except that I refuse to avoid them, because I like their magisterial tone.) But by her example I can say 'passives are usually best avoided' as much as I like. It's 'I was avoiding the passive' that's weak. Hnf.
no subject
no subject