[閒聊] The Elements of Style 也不可盡信
鼎鼎大名的The Elements of Style（by Strunk and White）也不可盡信
參考
50 YEARS OF STUPID GRAMMAR ADVICE.
http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497/
http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/50years.pdf
相關評論
Taking Another Look at Strunk and White
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/taking-another-look-at-strunk-and-white/
https://book.douban.com/review/5305964/
http://0rz.tw/lJXcZ
-------
其中一例，書中竟然認為下例三句都是被動語態（誤）
There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground.
It was not long before she was very sorry that she had said what she had.
The reason that he left college was that his health became impaired.
http://i.imgur.com/7T1jtnc.jpg
--------
更新：
又詢問另一位網友，他的意見是說，Strunk的意思在於：
說明這些句子是perfunctory expression，改用明顯的主動語態會更好，
但並不表示它們就是被動語態。
我的看法：
Strunk這裏如果寫清楚什麽是perfunctory expression，又或者他在例句後面括號，說明
爲什麽那樣寫不好，就不會有爭議了。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 36.225.54.91
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1468387840.A.196.html
※ 編輯: scju (36.225.54.91), 07/13/2016 16:10:27
→
07/13 21:06, , 1F
07/13 21:06, 1F
→
07/13 21:08, , 2F
07/13 21:08, 2F
→
07/13 21:10, , 3F
07/13 21:10, 3F
→
07/13 21:11, , 4F
07/13 21:11, 4F
→
07/13 22:09, , 5F
07/13 22:09, 5F
→
07/13 22:09, , 6F
07/13 22:09, 6F
→
07/13 22:09, , 7F
07/13 22:09, 7F
→
07/13 22:09, , 8F
07/13 22:09, 8F
→
07/13 22:09, , 9F
07/13 22:09, 9F
→
07/13 22:09, , 10F
07/13 22:09, 10F
→
07/13 22:10, , 11F
07/13 22:10, 11F
→
07/13 22:10, , 12F
07/13 22:10, 12F
→
07/13 22:10, , 13F
07/13 22:10, 13F
遭到D大指責QQ
那Geoffrey Pullum總算是母語使用者且受過良好教育了吧，如果他也這樣認為，
那就表示原書確實寫得不夠清楚。
※ 編輯: scju (114.32.32.215), 07/13/2016 23:22:13
→
07/14 02:41, , 14F
07/14 02:41, 14F
→
07/15 13:05, , 15F
07/15 13:05, 15F
推
05/30 15:59, , 16F
05/30 15:59, 16F
※ 編輯: scju (111.251.41.174), 10/17/2018 12:38:02
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 2 篇)：
