hehe! Love that one!

But when all is said and done Davy, the sentence you make is the sentence you want, and the green lines that 'word' makes on your screen are something you can ignore, for example it will often do the green line thing when you're writing dialogue, and you know you've got it how you want it, but computer says no! It'll do it as well if you get commas in the wrong place, and that is worth checking out.
I have had the green line thing done to me by my computer, [passive], but I am not intimidated, [active].
Becca.

Emma

I should have been clearer. Word doesn't do that to every instance of had been or were, but to the weak versions as you have illustrated.

The green lines drive me crazy. I sometimes end up swearing at them and spending more time on their deletion than the actual story.

JB

Ah, JB, yes that makes sense.

But why does anyone have the green lines on at all? I don't even let it tell me my spellings are wrong, until I choose to do a spell check. It's not difficult to switch off, and you can still do a check on demand if you're feeling nervous.

Emma

That's a good idea Emma, and will stop me fussing for sure. Now why didn't I think of that?

JB

Ever since, in the early days of spellcheckers, I had a programme which insisted on changing all the instances of 'handicapped' in a book on social care, to 'bandicoot', I've known that computers are no substitute for analytical reading of good writing, the OED, and a bit of common sense.

Emma

Conversely, I've just turned the grammar/style check on. I hadn’t realised you could be so specific with it, so I've decided to give it a try. There again, I expected it to tell me not to split ‘turned on’ like that, but it hasn’t. Why is that, I wonder?

Dee

Hi Dee, there's nothing wrong with the way you split your verb and phrasal particle there (or preposition, or whatever you want to call it!) Your usage is Standard English.

Luisa

I would never let a grammar/style checker tell me what to do.

Incidentally, Davy, 'she walked' is known as the simple past and 'she was walking' is known as the past continuous. You young things who were never taught grammar at school are really struggling with this, aren't you! Now you know how I feel when I can't get on with all the fancy stuff on the computer!

There again, I expected it to tell me not to split ‘turned on’ like that, but it hasn’t. Why is that, I wonder?

Luisa's right, it's perfectly correct English, and often makes for a better sentence. It's also one that separates the native English speakers out (there you are, another one!) because that form has learners of English tearing their hair out. They called it a phrasal verb; see all the the widly differing meanings of 'put', depending on what it's paired with: put on, put off, put out, put over, put out, put through, put in, put down...

Jem, interestingly, I was only taught English grammar at junior school, and the only grammar at secondary school was French and Latin. But my children are being taught it, so there's hope. My reference book is my mother, who had to do a whole English Grammar paper when she did Oxford entrance circa 1951. Ah, the golden days...

Emma

Well I know I'm a bit of a bore where grammar is concerned but I see it as tools of the trade. I insisted my older daughter did Latin at school because they don't really do much grammar in modern languages up to GCSE and I knew she wanted to do French. Incidentally, she is now in the final year of a joint English/French degree and her favourite modules have been the linguistic ones. My younger two - the twins - are getting a better deal and seem to be a bit more clued up on grammar. Maybe the knock on effect of reintroducing it in primary school will eventually reach me at FE level. I teach AS/A2 Lan and the subject can be really dry if you're trying to get to grips with what a noun or a verb is. Truly, some kids, even with a B grade at GCSE can't tell you that. Forget about active v. passive, mate! When I were a lass we did that thing called 'box analysis' where you had to parse a sentence. I hated it but I could do it and still can. When I went on to do some TEFL training it really stood me in good stead because you really have to know grammar backwards if you want to teach clever-clogs speakers of other languages - I mean the types who try to tell you that something you have just taught them is not grammatically correct. If you are confident enough you can just shout 'Usage!' at them. But if you are a bit shaky on the old grammar front they sniff you out and wipe the floor with you. Oh, God. This is a bit of a drone. Will stop now. Oh, have I mentioned David Crystal's Discovering Grammar? Forget all those weighty tomes. He explains grammar with humour and he is a descriptive grammarian not a prescriptive one. (You know, the lot who tell you that you can't split infinitives and all that rubbish.)

Thanks for the reference, Jem. I like what I've read of David Crystal, but I didn't know he'd done a grammar. If only more people realised it can be descriptive and fruitful, not a tool for making you feel ignorant or stifling creative thought, we'd never have stopped teaching it. I always think of Churchill: 'this is a piece of pedantry up with which I will not put.'

I had a series of au pairs who were learning grammar in high-level EFL classes, and it was very good for me as a writer to have to think about, say, the difference between, 'try lighting the fire,' and 'try to light the fire,'.

Emma

Yes - and 'He's gone to the bank' v. 'He's been to the bank'. There's loads like that. Actually i think Crystal has done a couple of grammar books. Both short and funny.

Many thanks to you all. I am still quite confused, but so much less and I actually feel I’m learning something here! Who needs English classes? Thinking about it, why didn’t they teach me this? Was I really not paying any attention? Well, I guess I can’t have been!

Emma, Wax, Dee, Luisa, Sarah – you are all shining stars in my eerie vacuum of confusion. Thanks for all your time on this, all your answers are so helpful, and it’s so good (not to mentioning comforting) to know not everyone is as big a dunce as me! Thank Gawd for WW!!!

Nice one Becca! “I have had the green line thing done to me by my computer, [passive], but I am not intimidated, [active].” really made me laugh. I’ll use that as my standard “passive” hunting device I reckon.

Jem, you’re right, I am considering not taking the piss out of my mum next time she needs me to set up her phone! But more importantly, I don’t need that book, I need you to carry on “droning” (I don’t think its droning at all – it’s blooming interesting). So you’ve got to tell me, why isn’t Dee splitting her infinitives there? Shouldn’t it be turned on the computer as she said?

And, it’s probably apt to mention that it’s not only inspired by them nasty green lines. Going through my stuff at the weekend, I found (the older stuff especially) it is riddled with passive stuff that generally links into a huge piece of telling-not-showing, usually either in thoughts or mainly the author’s (pretty unconvincing) voice, and it bugs the hell out of me now, whereas back in the day when I wrote it I must have thought it was the way to go. So, it just kind of struck me they might be linked (i.e. passive leads to telling). What’s the common consensus on this?

Au pairs eh...? Sounds like the best way to learn!

Hi Dav,
yes, passive leading to telling does sound likely, I think it can be a way, as well, although I couldn't back this up, of hesitating to get right inside the MC's mind, if it's a story written in the first person, in the same way that a writer can distance him or herself from the emotional content the story by referring to say, .. 'the heart' instead of 'my heart.'
Becca.