When is the "To be" linking verb the strongest phrasing?

Rechan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
239
Reaction score
18
There are multiple places I've seen the advice that variations of the "to be" linking verb (are/amwas/were/is) is weak, sometimes passive and indirect.

By that I mean "She was surprised by Luke's lack of teeth" is weaker than "Luke surprised her with a lack of teeth" or "Luke's lack of teeth surprised her".

So I'm wondering, what grammatical situations would this not be the case and these linking verbs should be used?

While beta-reading for an author where "was" happened ofte, I mentioned this and he pointed out that "was" is important because it denotes current action. If Jill was running, that implies she's continuing to run, and something can happen; if it were simply Jill ran, that suggests it's completed. I wasn't sure how to respond.

Edit: Oops, wrong forum. Thanks for the move, Old Hack!
 
Last edited:

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
Moving this from Ask the Editor to our Grammar room. Hang on...
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
'Jill ran ...' is perfectly acceptable.

Nothing at all wrong with variants of 'to be'.

The excessive use of 'was' can get irritating and reflect weak writing if it's used through habit and without any care or thought. It's use can often lack clarity and simply indicate a 'vague' action - was running, was sitting, was looking, watching, whatever etc.,.

Communication is the name of the game and passive sentences are also perfectly acceptable although again they should be used with thought.

Knowing one's grammar and constructing one's sentences to clearly convey what one intends to convey is the key.

Context is everything.
 
Last edited:

Rufus Coppertop

Banned
Flounced
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,935
Reaction score
948
Location
.
So I'm wondering, what grammatical situations would this not be the case and these linking verbs should be used?

In this case, for example.
"She was surprised by Luke's lack of teeth"
This is a perfect example of where passive voice is absolutely usable in that it keeps the emphasis on the subject of the sentence and keeps us within her POV for that scene.

On the other hand,
"Luke's lack of teeth surprised her".
This could make sense from within her POV in a scene in the right context of the narrative flow but it also gives agency or initiative to his lack of teeth.

While beta-reading for an author where "was" happened ofte, I mentioned this and he pointed out that "was" is important because it denotes current action. If Jill was running, that implies she's continuing to run, and something can happen; if it were simply Jill ran, that suggests it's completed. I wasn't sure how to respond.
This author is correct.Unfortunately, there's a lot of confusion about passive voice these days.

was surprised by
- passive voice.
was running - active voice with current action denoted.

Although the verb to be is used as a kind of auxiliary for passive voice constructions in English, in and of itself the verb to be is not passive. Indeed, the verb to be cannot be expressed in a passive form which is probably a good thing not just for grammarians but for logicians, ontologists, philosophers and possibly even theologians.
 

VeryBigBeard

Preparing for winter
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
2,449
Reaction score
1,505
I know that 'was' is one of my problems. I have a tendency to overuse it when I'm drafting. I'm not sure why, though I was exposed to some concentrated academic writing as a kid so my passive voice breaks out whenever there's a full moon.

It's one of those things I'm increasingly aware of when I revise. That said, I certainly don't always change it. There's a lot of voice and rhythm wrapped up in the specific words and syntax we each use, it's what makes writers unique. I've accepted that my voice will probably always be a bit dry and stiff, and a little more passive than some. When I revise, I revise for clarity and for sound. I don't want any sentences that are outright confusing (without reason), and I don't want anything that feels bulky to read. Passive voice can cause both those problems, but isn't a problem in and of itself.

I'm also not a grammarian. As a reader, I find myself getting a bit annoyed if the writing is too tight. Dropping was and forcing an active verb construction can get repetitious and start to feel forced. It can also start to make a lot of sentences declarative without some careful crafting of syntax, so there are problems to look out for with both types.
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
There are multiple places I've seen the advice that variations of the "to be" linking verb (are/amwas/were/is) is weak, sometimes passive and indirect.

By that I mean "She was surprised by Luke's lack of teeth" is weaker than "Luke surprised her with a lack of teeth" or "Luke's lack of teeth surprised her".

In this case "was" is part of the verb phrase "was surprised". Rather than being a linking verb, it is an auxiliary verb making the imperfect tense form of the verb "surprise", sp that matter os some people finding the verb "to be" weak is irrelevant.

[/QUOTE]So I'm wondering, what grammatical situations would this not be the case and these linking verbs should be used?

While beta-reading for an author where "was" happened ofte, I mentioned this and he pointed out that "was" is important because it denotes current action. If Jill was running, that implies she's continuing to run, and something can happen; if it were simply Jill ran, that suggests it's completed. I wasn't sure how to respond.
[/QUOTE]

That author was correct. Using the imperfect instead of the perfect changes the meaning to ongoing action in the past.
 

Zanralotta

Registered
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
19
Reaction score
8
No, I mean perfect and imperfect. If you are using different terms then that's your business.
Can you explain what you mean by "imperfect" and "perfect" then?
(I learned 2 West-Germanic and 4 Romanic languages and was taught a specific meaning for those words.)
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
Can you explain what you mean by "imperfect" and "perfect" then?
(I learned 2 West-Germanic and 4 Romanic languages and was taught a specific meaning for those words.)

Imperfect means that the action is or was continuing not completed, i.e., not perfected. Perfect means that the action was completed, i.e., perfected. Is that different from what you learned? Terms get changed from time to time, but I have seen those in use recently. Is your definition different?

When used in relation to English, "imperfect" refers to forms much more commonly called past progressive or past continuous (like was doing or were doing). These are combinations of past tense with specifically continuous or progressive aspect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect

If this article is saying that past progressive is more common, then it appears that a change in terms in taking place.
 
Last edited:

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
There are multiple places I've seen the advice that variations of the "to be" linking verb (are/amwas/were/is) is weak, sometimes passive and indirect.

By that I mean "She was surprised by Luke's lack of teeth" is weaker than "Luke surprised her with a lack of teeth" or "Luke's lack of teeth surprised her".

The "to be" verb form is not really the issue in "passive" v. "active" sentence construction. The major issue is the order of presentation of object and subject, the primary symptom being the preposition "by".

And by no means are all passive voice constructions to be considered bad. It your example, for example, if the POV emphasis is on "she", I'd find that first construction perfectly appropriate. The second emphasizes "Luke", and changes the perception a bit. You have to decide what works best within the context of your narrative.

The major problem with "passive" voice constructions is that they are overused, especially by inexperienced writers. Too many of them tend to make narrative flabby.

caw
 

Rechan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
239
Reaction score
18
I know that 'was' is one of my problems. I have a tendency to overuse it when I'm drafting. I'm not sure why, though I was exposed to some concentrated academic writing as a kid so my passive voice breaks out whenever there's a full moon.
After it was published, an editor I know read my first novella and said my writing was infested with "was" and since then I've been hyper vigilant about it.

In others I see it a lot either in action, or in description ("the room was cold"). And they crop up a lot.

So I should relax the vigilance some?

Aside from Overuse, when is it better to change it? I think was is Simplistic and can be punched up "The room was cold" versus "the cold air gave me goosebumps" or "I shivered and wished I brought a sweater". But I guess not everything needs to be punched up?
 

growingupblessings

Drinking lots of coffee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
130
Reaction score
13
Location
Ohio
I find this topic to be incredibly difficult. I'll be the first to tell you that I didn't pay enough attention in HS English, though I honestly don't remember anybody talking about any of these ideas.

I am editing a very rough draft right now, and have been researching active/passive voice and weak/strong verbs.

These two little publications helped me a lot - disregard if you are beyond them.

https://www.uncg.edu/eng/writingcenter/handouts/STRONG_AND_WEAK_VERBS.pdf

https://www.uncg.edu/eng/writingcenter/handouts/PASSIVE_AND_ACTIVE_VOICE.pdf
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
After it was published, an editor I know read my first novella and said my writing was infested with "was" and since then I've been hyper vigilant about it.

In others I see it a lot either in action, or in description ("the room was cold"). And they crop up a lot.

So I should relax the vigilance some?

It is my opinion, and it's simply opinion, that there are many places where some form of the verb "to be" is the best thing to write. In many cases there is no replacement for it.

Aside from Overuse, when is it better to change it? I think was is Simplistic and can be punched up "The room was cold" versus "the cold air gave me goosebumps" or "I shivered and wished I brought a sweater". But I guess not everything needs to be punched up?

Then there's the matter of being direct versus beating around the bush. You might want to create a character who uses a hundred words to express what can be said in ten words. And there is also the matter of the authorial voice. Wht's your style? If your style is good? If it is, then any oddities about it are good. If the room was cold, then it was cold. Why beat around the bush? What's wrong with direct statements?
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
It's been said on many other threads, but somehow no matter how often we stake this vampire, it just keeps coming back:

THE USE OF THE WORD 'WAS', OR ANY OTHER 'TO BE' VERB FORM, IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC SIGNAL OF PASSIVE VOICE.

If you harbor that idea, expunge it as fast as you can. It is complete nonsense, and anybody who gives that advice doesn't know enough about grammatical construction to be worth listening to.

caw
 

Zanralotta

Registered
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
19
Reaction score
8
Imperfect means that the action is or was continuing not completed, i.e., not perfected. Perfect means that the action was completed, i.e., perfected. Is that different from what you learned? Terms get changed from time to time, but I have seen those in use recently. Is your definition different?
This is what I learnt (for Romanic languages).
But your answer doesn't really help me.
I was taught the past progressive has an imperfective aspect like you agree with in your above post (though after posting, I had a conversation with a linguist I know who claims that the English progressive is only part of the imperfective, with "used to" as the habitual equivalent, so you can't really file any English progressive tense under imperfect, but I think that's for another discussion, though I find it interesting).

Pretend I'm dumb.
My interpretation of your post was that you claimed
"She was running" was imperfect, while "she ran" was perfect.

I'm not sure how else to read your post?

Edit:
I think I have some kind of realisation that includes the difference between "perfect" and "perfective"! Never mind me, then... I get it now!
 
Last edited:

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
This is what I learnt (for Romanic languages).
But your answer doesn't really help me.
I was taught the past progressive has an imperfective aspect like you agree with in your above post (though after posting, I had a conversation with a linguist I know who claims that the English progressive is only part of the imperfective, with "used to" as the habitual equivalent, so you can't really file any English progressive tense under imperfect, but I think that's for another discussion, though I find it interesting).

Pretend I'm dumb.
My interpretation of your post was that you claimed
"She was running" was imperfect, while "she ran" was perfect.

I'm not sure how else to read your post?

Edit:
I think I have some kind of realisation that includes the difference between "perfect" and "perfective"! Never mind me, then... I get it now!

Aha!

I usually forget about "used to", because that is colloquial, and it is connotes habitual action in the past, but the action can be perfect or imperfect. There probably is a better term for it than imperfect.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Imperfect means that the action is or was continuing not completed, i.e., not perfected. Perfect means that the action was completed, i.e., perfected. Is that different from what you learned? Terms get changed from time to time, but I have seen those in use recently. Is your definition different?

When used in relation to English, "imperfect" refers to forms much more commonly called past progressive or past continuous (like was doing or were doing). These are combinations of past tense with specifically continuous or progressive aspect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect

If this article is saying that past progressive is more common, then it appears that a change in terms in taking place.

There's a problem with this kind of usage. I've heard "perfective" vs. "imperfective" aspect, which is one thing. The imperfect includes both imperfective aspective and past tense; perfective past tense would also be called the preterite. I'm not sure I've ever heard "perfect" for the simple past tense, but I've been out of loop for some years now.

The main problem I see with using these terms outside of academic-linguistic contexts is that, in common parlance, "perfect" tends to have another meaning:

went - simple past tense
has gone - present perfect tense

Under your usage both of these forms have the potential to express "the perfect" (i.e. the perfective aspect), but only the latter is commonly called the perfect (in it's present and past forms, according to the tense "have" takes). There's no real alternative for the "have done" construction, and using perfect for both those related, overlapping, but distinct meanings is quite simply confusing.

I wouldn't suggest using these terms. Otherwise you'd tie yourself in a knot trying to explain the difference between "I've gone" and "I've been going", as the first would be perfective perfect, while the second would be imperfective perfect (it gets even more confusing if you drop the -ive).

So my guess is that you're likely not wrong when using these terms, but you're likely also not very helpful, for above pragmatic reasons.
 

Robert Dawson

Getting The Hang Of It
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
286
Reaction score
32
Website
cs.smu.ca
"Used to" is on the borderliine between pure tense structure and the large and complicated realm of modal verb constructions. Like "like[d] to" or "want[ed] to" or "can/could." Which has no logical boundary this side of "had once read an article in a coverless Reader's Digest from the nineteen-fifties in her parents' attic about how to..."

Or that incredibly rococo bit of elegant English (in certain places, times, and classes) whereby simple future is constructed with "I/we shall, you will, he/she/it/they will" while intention is constructed with ""I/we will, you shall, he/she/it/they shall."

Go. Figure.
 

apchelopech

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
210
Reaction score
21
Going back to the OP -

If Jill was running, that implies she's continuing to run, and something can happen; if it were simply Jill ran, that suggests it's completed.

This isn't really an issue with the verb to be. The operative verb in both versions is 'run' - it just happens that we make the continuous (progressive) form of verbs with the -ing form preceded by the verb to be.

Perhaps the real issue the OPer raises is routinely defaulting to the verb to be either through laziness or lack of imagination. Or a penchant for being dogmatic, ie telling the reader how he/she must view what's being recounted.

There's a movement been around since the 1940s - known as 'E-Prime' - whose adherents would banish the verb to be in its entirety. They are of course crazy. :)
 

evilrooster

Wicked chicken
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
888
Location
Where eggs are small and dear
Website
www.sunpig.com
Perhaps the real issue the OPer raises is routinely defaulting to the verb to be either through laziness or lack of imagination. Or a penchant for being dogmatic, ie telling the reader how he/she must view what's being recounted.

Or, perhaps, habit, lack of experience choosing alternatives, or any number of reasons. Immediately jumping to calling the OP lazy, lacking in imagination, or dogmatic is perilously close to failing to respect your fellow writer, and that is the one rule we do not break here on Absolute Write.
 

Robert Dawson

Getting The Hang Of It
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
286
Reaction score
32
Website
cs.smu.ca
With great respect: the OP was asking about general usage and/or that of an unspecified other writer.

Apchelopech did not accuse the OP of laziness, etc; he said that the issue that the OP raised was laziness, etc. - that is, in general, or of the unspecified other writer. I do not see this as directed at the OP, and think the imputation of disrespect might be unwarranted.

*stands and waits for thunderbolt to strike*
 

apchelopech

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
210
Reaction score
21
Or, perhaps, habit, lack of experience choosing alternatives, or any number of reasons. Immediately jumping to calling the OP lazy, lacking in imagination, or dogmatic is perilously close to failing to respect your fellow writer, and that is the one rule we do not break here on Absolute Write.

I find myself chastened by this observation for I did not, in my earlier post, understand myself to be directing my remarks to the original poster or indeed to any other individual and neither was that my intent. Had I divined that such would be the interpretation of my words, I would have chosen them with greater precision and forethought. I shall in future be more circumspect.

APC
 

qwerty

exiled Brit
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
222
Location
Burgundy
he pointed out that "was" is important because it denotes current action.
Now here's a conundrum:
As "was" is past tense, why does it denote a current action?

No, I'm not expecting anyone to seriously answer that. :)