basically, a friend went to a bbq joint for lunch on monday, and long story short, my phone ended up suggesting "Solutions" as the word to go after "Gender," cuz of course gender is going to get involved in any discussion between two trans people, so i went with it, and ve responded with...
so guess what i worked on tonight
that's about all i can say about that
secretly, this was a good excuse to play around with jekyll and bang out a bit of creative writing. hoping to use this as a vehicle(*) for future urges of writing.
(*) pronounced 'VEE-hick-uhl' in official NASA pronunciation guide
"Irradiation in hydrocarbon media leads to the formation of products which precipitate as their concentration increases."
"X was precipitated by the addition of pyridine into a solution of TfOH in Et2O" (I guess I'm wrong about that being old fashioned)
"Addition of counterions such as K+ induces these negatively charged clusters to precipitate into crystals suitable for structure analysis using X-ray diffraction"
"and lactams used to precipitate uranyl(VI) species from nitric acid solutions."
"these phases are highly insoluble and generally precipitate as microcrystalline or amorphous powders"
Also: Are all of these what a linguist would call 3rd person passive? As they all seem to be what a chemist would call 3rd person passive.
(Also, this is only examples from papers that aren't decades old, and that use precipitate as a verb of some sort. It can also be a noun. Oh and only exactly precipitate, not Products precipitates or precipitated.)
@Canageek I've said it before and I'll say it again: you're encouraging bad writing as a status symbol. The insistence on using passive voice stems from a misunderstanding of the role of passive voice. It's like if you were expected to write your papers in Comic Sans.
And yes, "were subjected" is passive.
@Canageek Yes! And part of the problem is the institutional insistence on passive voice with no explanation of what passive voice is or when it's appropriate to break that rule.
The other part is the hard sciences' disrespect for social sciences and liberal arts, but I digress.
@DialMforMara Actually, at McMaster we were allowed mostly to use passive or active voice after a certain point as long as we did it consistently. I just prefer passive.
In fact we were given this paper as a guide to how to write papers: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.200400767/abstract which includes the line "Use the active voice whenever possible"
It is becoming more common to see active voice in papers.
@DialMforMara I mean, I can usually tell if a paper is written by a chemist or a physicists and make a guess at how old it is by the voice. So I may not know the formal way of describing it, but I could probably spot someone who isn't a scientist who was pretending to be one.
@DialMforMara Let me expand: I agree these examples are active now that I reread them, which means I don't think the problem is that chemists don't know what passive voice is, but that not all of us are good at writing in it. Plus a few of these examples are from a group known to be bad writers that my boss complains about)
@DialMforMara But something I've noted reading papers in the humanities (history mostly) is that they aren't actually much better writers then scientists.
In fact, when I took Science Technology and the World, the prof started by saying he had a lot of scientists and engineers talk to him before taking the class, and a lot of them were worried they wouldn't be able to write well enough. He said that history majors don't write NEARLY as well as science majors think they do, so not to worry about it.
1. "Products precipitate" is active unergative intransitive.
2. "X was precipitated by" is passive, and possibly unaccusative intransitive, but I've only studied transitivity in active contexts.
3. "Addition of counterions causes these clusters to precipitate" is infinitive and, I believe, a control construction.