RE: [External] : Re: New optional Eshell module: em-elecslash

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

(A reply for the list, not necessarily for you.)

> but in the U.K. we don't have this idea that
> the passive voice is worse than the active --
> I didn't learn the distinction until after
> finishing a humanities degree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AEnglish_passive_voice#Differences_between_US_and_British_English
___

Guidance about the active/passive choice is generally
more subtle/involved than just one being considered
systematically "worse than" the other.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_passive_voice#Style_advice,
and that whole page, generally.  For example:

 "Use of the passive in English varies with writing
  style and field. It is generally much less used
  than the active voice but is more prevalent in
  scientific writing than in other prose.

  Contemporary style guides discourage excessive
  use of the passive but appropriate use is
  generally accepted, for instance where the
  patient is the topic, the agent is unimportant
  (and therefore omitted), or the agent is to be 
  highlighted (and therefore placed toward the end)."

And see https://www.grammarly.com/blog/passive-voice/.
___

One study of the use of passive voice in scientific writing:

https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1301_2014_A03.pdf
___

IMO it's more about avoiding a systematic or
habitual overuse of the passive voice, which is
not unknown to writing that's more formalistic in
style. ;-)

There's no formula that applies well absolutely.
Neither active nor passive voice is systematically
"worse than" the other.

But if you have a doubt in some case, read both
and see which you think is clearer.  If still in
doubt, it probably means you see no special
reason for the passive voice there - use active.