Originally posted by: ggavinmoss
Man, grammar hag fights are the best.
Grammar fights are not winnable. These fights will go on forever in history. The problem is that the grammar rules are fluid and often contradictory.
One example of changing and contradictory grammar rules really bothers me. Imagine you are writing a formal report or a journal article about a choice you made while doing research.
[*]This sentence fragment was acceptable and printed in journals for many years:
"I chose option (B) since..."
[*]Along came a grammar change. Suddenly it became unacceptable to use personal pronouns in formal writing. You could no longer use the words 'I', 'me', or 'we' and get your paper published. Now this was acceptable and was printed:
"Option (B) was chosen since..."
[*]Oh wait! Papers suddenly became dull and awkward. Grammar nazis came to the rescue. The nazis deemed passive tense to be bad grammar. A writer now needed to write this or something similar:
"One chooses option (B) since..."
That fragment is certainly unclear and still is awkward. Maybe a writer would try this:
"The author chose option (B) since..."
Now you are talking like Bob Dole. It just reads wrong. Soon you resort to trying dozens of reworded and lengthy sentences just to avoid the passive tense. Often the sentence grows by 50% (or more). The sentence often becomes a run-on sentence to avoid passive tense. We all know that the wordy run-on sentences are disliked by the grammar police. What is the end result? Most journals are now accepting the use of the word 'I'.