I agree. There's also room for formal and informal. Other languages even have established rules for each, as opposed to the concepts of proper and improper in English. When I ask, "To whom do I make out the check?" I sound pretentious. I avoid it entirely by asking, "What name would you like on the check?" but you can't always do that so easily. Some sentences get complicated. As writers, we have to decide which characters know and follow which rules. That includes the narrator. Even omniscient narration with no commentary or expressed opinions possesses character traits, including grammar flaws. We call it voice, but that's what it is. It's character. ETA: Not every writer considers this, of course. It drives me a little batty when a character, say the valedictorian or an English teacher, doesn't know when to use "I" or "me", "who" or "whom", etc. That character should know better, which is a good reason for us to know these rules. It's like having a character who's a chemist say something untrue about chemistry. Anyone who knows the difference is going to see it as an error in the writing.
I have a magnet on my refrigerator, given to me by my college daughter, which pictures a stern professorial owl saying "Whom." I must confess I have no solid grasp of the who/whom rule, and always had to go to the stylebook. Even though by definition I was probably a grammarian -- at least I was an editor.
I'm still getting the hang of this one. My friend told me if you can substitute "him (or her)" then it should be whom, otherwise who. But I still get confused and check with her a lot...
Yup, that's subject/object too. You also have to understand subject/object to get I/me right... it's pretty instinctive when there's only one, but people get confused when you add extra subjects or objects. Who hit whom? She hit him. She hit me. I hit her. Bernie and I hit Janice and her. Bernie and she hit Janice and me. Fun with grammar!
Mostly it has been retired. However, and particularly in dialogue, how and if such distinctions are used say a lot about who is delivering them, and to whom (see what I did there?) Being strictly formal about grammar can come across as pedantic, or can indicate someone who knows and enjoys the finer points of language. Or it can be a deliberate rebuke against someone who is painfully ignorant about usage. I get far more annoyed at newscasters fracturing the English language. These are supposedly communications professionals, and yet they flub subjective vs objective personal pronouns on a regular basis between committing more heinous acts of verbicide, so I don't even bother to sigh when they misuse who or whom.
I was just on Twitter and some writer was saying "I use 'had' too often - the passive voice has got to go!" And when I corrected her that it isn't passive, she came back with, "Either way, it can go and 'was' can go with it." And I'm just like, well... good luck trying to write anything then. Seriously, I have no respect for people who just put blanket bans on things - the mark of a bad writer if ever there was one. You can tell who the amateurs are by how many absolutes they set. (Yes I was unnecessarily annoyed by this... Stupid rules are stupid.)
Mckk -- I agree with you, writing is not about absolutes and rules. But it does have general principles that make it more readable. Speaking of that, when I served a stint as a small-town newspaper reporter (about the only job for which the word "stint" feels right), I had no experience in that sort of writing, and my nervousness showed. The best advice I got at that time was from the editor/publisher (no literary maven in any sense) who told me, bluntly but in good humor, "your writing is good overall, but I have one suggestion. I forbid you from using the word 'that.' " I went back and reviewed my writing, and saw I was using "that" as a sort of crutch, a fall-back phrasing. My writing improved, though probably as much due to increased awareness overall. And in his defense, it was a good-natured suggestion, not a rule per se. But it made me a better writer. What do you think of that?
I think individualized advice, taken with a grain of salt, is often useful. You were overusing "that", so you benefited from reducing your dependence on it. But obviously you didn't take the advice literally, and obviously it wouldn't be effective advice if applied to someone who wasn't overusing "that". Much different from blanket rules taken as absolutes.
It's bad enough when writers tell each other not to ever use passive voice, but then it turns out they don't even know what passive voice is. They think 'was' is the marker for passive voice and are resolved to eliminate it! Try removing 'was' from your final sentence, for example ...Yes, I was unnecessarily annoyed by this... and see what you get. I give up. Some people are so habitually resistant to learning that they never will.
Well, try explaining that passive voice is subject/object inversion. Still static verbs are less forceful, and using them without choosing them leads to dull writing. Sentences built around the variants on the verb to be as the main verb are static by definition, as they only describe state. They center around the applied adjectives and adverbs. Unfortunately, they are easily confused with the auxiliary verbs of the broader range of verb tenses. Technical writing often endorses use of passive voice for the simple reason that passive voice also removes or desensitized the subject. "The sample was maintained at a temperature of 38C for three hours" removes the researcher(s) from the sentence entirely and focuses instead on the procedure followed. In fiction, passive voice is particularly valuable when you wish to conceal the identity of who is performing the action. No personal pronoun need be used. "The victim was killed by a thin, sharp blade inserted between the third and fourth cervical vertebrae."
That is particularly useful. It's also helpful when the person performing the action doesn't really matter. "A copy of The New York Times had been left open on the park bench."
I came back to post this. Totally agree. I think it is a really important part of staying in character. If the POV character doesn't care who the subject is, he wouldn't be thinking about him, right?
My inclination would be to say, "Someone had left an open copy of the Times on the bench." Or, "An open copy of the Times lay on the bench." Still doesn't matter who did it, but the action verb reads better to me.
Yes, yours are good examples, probably better than mine, as stand-alones. Here's a good article on the use of passive voice, with better examples: https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/revising/passive-voice/
Depends on the context, though. Depends on what the author is trying to stress. I mean, if you're painting a scene of absolute abandonment in which you want to include the element of the Times being LEFT open (as opposed to just sitting there, open), and if you didn't want to clutter the scene up with a bunch of "someone"s, then I think @jannert's sentence would be useful. There was nothing strange about the scene, initially. It was all just another peaceful day at the park, with a lovely breeze blowing in from the south and not many people around to clutter the place up. Well. Not any people around, and wasn't that a bit peculiar, for such a lovely day and such a centrally located park? Alistair took a closer look at the scene. Toys lay, abandoned, in the sandbox, and a football rested alone on the grass. A copy of The New York Times had been left open on the park bench, as if only set down for a moment. But there were no people. Not anywhere. There'd be nothing wrong with using the "someone had left" version in that paragraph, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it as written, either. A slightly different emphasis, a slightly different mood.