No, actually please stop with regurgitating weird language constructs.
Everybody knows that a car doesn’t drive itself (STFU Tesla fanboys, it doesn’t) and that a driver is responsible.
That, and yes, a vehicle DID hit them. It’s not like the driver stopped, got out and beat the shit out of the toddler, his car, driven by him (doh) hit the toddler and killed her.
No, its still passive voicing that intermediates between the actor and the act.
The vehicle struck the child
vs
The driver struck the child
is analgous to
The bullet struck the child
vs
The cop shot the child
EDIT:
With the active phrasing… you can just append a following clause to give more detail, and it flows naturally.
The driver struck the child [with the truck] , [unaware of their presence].
The cop shot the child [unintentionally] / [with their service pistol], [while pursuing a suspect].
These kinds of statements are active voiced, and also more fact/detail content heavy.
It is entirely possible to use active voicing and also be precise… you’re bending over backwards with your hyperbolic example.
The whole point of using passive voicing is that it works on the reader at a subconscious or subliminal level.
Yes, ‘everybody knows’ that a car doesn’t drive itself, but phrasing and vocabulary have always been key elements of propaganda, because only more literate, more critically analytic readers realize what is happening in a more conscious way.
The vehicle didn’t hit them. A person driving the vehicle did. Stop with this regurgitation of passive police reports.
No, actually please stop with regurgitating weird language constructs.
Everybody knows that a car doesn’t drive itself (STFU Tesla fanboys, it doesn’t) and that a driver is responsible.
That, and yes, a vehicle DID hit them. It’s not like the driver stopped, got out and beat the shit out of the toddler, his car, driven by him (doh) hit the toddler and killed her.
No, its still passive voicing that intermediates between the actor and the act.
The vehicle struck the child
vs
The driver struck the child
is analgous to
The bullet struck the child
vs
The cop shot the child
EDIT:
With the active phrasing… you can just append a following clause to give more detail, and it flows naturally.
The driver struck the child [with the truck] , [unaware of their presence].
The cop shot the child [unintentionally] / [with their service pistol], [while pursuing a suspect].
These kinds of statements are active voiced, and also more fact/detail content heavy.
It is entirely possible to use active voicing and also be precise… you’re bending over backwards with your hyperbolic example.
The whole point of using passive voicing is that it works on the reader at a subconscious or subliminal level.
Yes, ‘everybody knows’ that a car doesn’t drive itself, but phrasing and vocabulary have always been key elements of propaganda, because only more literate, more critically analytic readers realize what is happening in a more conscious way.
what a waste of time
Is what your parents said after they had sex to conceive you
smooth, not contrived at all
Read the room, Asshole, what the fuck is wrong with you?
What are you talking about?