剑桥英语语法主编溥哲夫（Geoffrey Pullum) 痛骂Strunk和White的ELEMENTS OF STYLE. Pullum在句法理论领域的学术水平完全超越怀疑。看完之后，我觉得他的批评很有道理。小白书的两位主编确实是不太懂英语语法的小白，我为我的盲从感到羞愧。
50 YEARS OF STUPID GRAMMAR ADVICE. http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497/
This was most unfortunate for the field of English grammar, because both authors were grammatical incompetents. Strunk had very little analytical understanding of syntax, White even less. Certainly White was a fine writer, but he was not qualified as a grammarian. Despite the post-1957 explosion of theoretical linguistics, Elements settled in as the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught to college students and presented to the general public, and the subject was stuck in the doldrums for the rest of the 20th century.
Some of the recommendations are vapid, like "Be clear" (how could one disagree?). Some are tautologous, like "Do not explain too much." (Explaining too much means explaining more than you should, so of course you shouldn't.) Many are useless, like "Omit needless words." (The students who know which words are needless don't need the instruction.)
"There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" has no sign of the passive in it anywhere."
It was not long before she was very sorry that she had said what she had" also contains nothing that is even reminiscent of the passive construction.
"The reason that he left college was that his health became impaired" is presumably fingered as passive because of "impaired," but that's a mistake. It's an adjective here. "Become" doesn't allow a following passive clause. (Notice, for example, that "A new edition became issued by the publishers" is not grammatical.)
And then, in the very next sentence, comes a negative passive clause containing three adjectives: "The adjective hasn't been built that can pull a weak or inaccurate noun out of a tight place."
有些是根本错误的主张，比如split infinitive, 在历史上就从来不是错误的用法，根本谈不上审时度势地用。至于说在动词与to之间插入副词是起强调作用，更是子虚乌有。
又如'none of us' 需后接单数动词的说法，并无证据支撑。历史文本始终显示单复皆可。我刚刚去BNC搜索，结果也大致是五五开。