Greece should be inspired by its golden age of economic growth—1000 BC

Is there a beanbag chair I can rest easy on?

An American giant robot just challenged a Japanese giant robot to a duel

Stop texting right now and learn from the Chinese: there’s a better way to message

Indian public servants love tinkering with Wikipedia

Quartz Daily Brief—Americas edition—US jobs, Xiaomi’s sales boost, Sweden’s surprise cut, junk food evaluated

WHO IS THE VICTIM

Watch us explain how to feed the world and end poverty at the same time

What Rahul Yadav’s friends from IIT Bombay have to say about him

They know not what they do

Stroppy Editor

One of my more exciting hobbies is checking whether prescriptivists follow their own advice. Often, they don’t. For instance, a stunningly high proportion of people who criticise the passive voice use the passive voice themselves, even as they’re criticising it.

I’ve seen four of these in the last week or so (most if not all via Oliver Kamm).

First, in an article on LinkedIn, Bernard Marr writes:

While there’s nothing absolutely wrong about passive voice, it’s considered weak writing.

I’ve underlined Marr’s use of the passive voice. And I don’t think it’s weak – and nor are the other nine uses of the passive in that article.

Second, in a blog post, Nigel Dudley writes:

Organisations use the passive in their statements, particularly when they have been criticised and want to dodge responsibility.

True, the passive voice can be used to avoid mentioning who was responsible for something. But…

View original post 934 more words