to be forms in interrogative sentences

I'm confused. What could be wrong with any of these sentences?


If you're writing in present tense, you should have "Is he losing his confidence..." and "Is Kalliope too selfish..." instead. Otherwise, those are all fine.

Had she made him lose his self-confidence? / Could she cause his loss of confidence?

Did Kaliope's self-absorption make her blind to how her actions affected others?

What will you do about it?

There's nothing wrong with using forms of to be.

It's a perfectly good verb with perfectly good uses. Yes, it also has certain problematic uses, but that's no reason to avoid it altogether.

FennelGiraffe said:

There's nothing wrong with using forms of to be.

It's a perfectly good verb with perfectly good uses. Yes, it also has certain problematic uses, but that's no reason to avoid it altogether.

Click to expand...

It never occurred to me in a million years that this question stemmed from "be-phobia".

STOP IT WITH THE BE-PHOBIA, PEOPLE! YOU CAN USE THE VERB "TO BE" AND YOU CAN USE ADJECTIVES AND YOU CAN USE ADVERBS! YOU CAN USE THE FIRST PERSON SINGULAR AND YOU CAN USE CONTRACTIONS!

All of the "one-size-fits-all" writer's "rules" are bunkum. Forget you ever learned them.



Except the thing about passive voice. You should always use passive voice like curare--helpful in tiny increments where you really need it, but a deadly poison if overused.

It's useful to CHECK your writing for forms of the verb "to be" and see if there is a better way of expressing that particular thought. That doesn't mean you should systematically reject it every time you see it.

When editing, I run searches for "is" and "was" and "-ly" endings. The question I ask myself when I find them is "Is there a better way to say this?" Sometimes there is, so I change it. Sometimes, it looks just fine the way it is, so I leave it.

Remember, moderation in all things. A lot of these "rules" are useful if you know how to keep them in check. They are things to consider, not commandments.

IceCreamEmpress said:

Except the thing about passive voice. You should always use passive voice like curare--helpful in tiny increments where you really need it, but a deadly poison if overused.

Click to expand...

What is it with the passive voice?

The best arguments against it are political: i.e. levelled against competent writers who use the passive voice competently for insidious purposes. [Omitting agency to avoid responsibility, or to gloss over sloppy thinking. But you can do that in the active voice, too.]

Most other instances are taste.