Don't be passive-aggressive

This opinion piece (by Constance Hale for the New York Times) has been doing the rounds.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/the-pleasures-and-perils-of-the-passive/

Constance explains the passive voice clearly. She gives some examples of its abuse, such as this politicians' favourite — cleverly labelled the 'past exonerative'.

But Constance doesn't jump on the everything-active bandwagon. Sometimes sentences are passive for a reason. Maybe the 'agent' in the sentence isn't as important as the subject, or isn't known. If your car has been stolen, you may never find a specific person to be angry at.

So don’t overuse the passive voice, but don’t fear it. After all, it might be just what was ordered by the doctor.

No comma splices, please; we're allergic

Over in the Economist column 'Johnson' (named after the dictionary-maker) they've been debating the dreaded comma splice, leading to a post that begins:

SEVERAL months ago I was surprised to see Arnold Zwicky, a linguist, use a comma splice. A few commenters took me to task for being over-picky. The question came up again in the comments several days ago, when k.a.gardner, a frequent commenter, asked for a post on the comma splice. One of my colleagues quickly replied that "The comma-splice rule is totally arbitrary," and a back-and-forth ensued.

What is a comma splice?  Prof Zwicky wrote back in July

"this is not even a tempest in a teapot, it’s a fuss in a thimbleful of spit."

That's two independent clauses joined only by a comma, or a comma splice, sometimes called a "comma fault".

Pop over to the Economist and have your say, or join in our discussion here. Comma splice.  Pedantry or plain speaking?