Pet peeves: Preforming an analysis
Here’s one of my pet peeves - “preformed”. I routinely have students tell me things like
The standardization of 0.1 M base was preformed using the primary standard grade KHP.
I’m sure the student didn’t mold the base into a predeterimined shape before doing the analysis. Perhaps this student meant that they “performed” the standardization?
Of course, even the word “perform” in a description of what you’re doing in a lab is never actually necessary - unless you’re actually performing your experiment before a live studio audience. What’s wrong with saying sometihng like this?
The 0.1M NaOH solution was standardized by titrating against primary standard grade KHP.
October 10th, 2006 at 10:17 am
hmmm … from a liberal arts perspective … that would be using the passive voice.
e+
October 10th, 2006 at 11:54 am
True.
On the other hand, you’re actually supposed to use the passive voice when writing about your experimental procedures for a scientific or technical journal.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Except that Microsoft Word grammar check will flag passive voice and suggest that it be changed. That’s how proof reading is done these days.
Which leads into a pet peeve of mine. More and more people seem to be unable to do things themselves, such as make change, add a column of figures, proof read compostitions, etc. We’ve become too reliant on technology.
“Add it up in your head”, I say.
“Aw jeeze, dad… “, whine my children.