Do you remember seeing this article title back in November of last year (2025)?
What will 3I/ATLAS teach us about the universe?
It was used in a Medium email and post to garner interest in reading about the asteroid careening toward our part of the galaxy. While I understand all the hype about this asteroid visitor to our solar system (and I found the article very interesting), this title bothers me.
I think it should bother you, too.
It uses the verb wrong. Or rather, it uses the wrong verb.
3I/Atlas is an inanimate asteroid (we know this now that it’s passed and we probably knew it before it passed; it was not a spaceship with aliens on it [insert eyeroll here]). Inanimate objects cannot take action themselves. “Teach” is an action verb.
This asteroid cannot “teach” us anything.
However, we (or more specifically, scientists) could LEARN from it. We (or those scientists) have to be the ones who take the actions, as we (royal “we” here) are not inanimate objects.
Just consider, can a rock teach you anything?
Sure, “to teach” and “to learn” are verbs that go together. We usually learn when someone teaches. Maybe this is why we tend to use them interchangeably, but we shouldn’t. Because they are not synonyms.
I usually see such misuse when someone is going a little too hard at the active voice. “To learn” is perceived as a “passive” verb, vice “to teach.” Just think back to all that time sitting bored in a classroom while the teacher stood at the board going over a lesson; you probably felt like you weren’t doing anything.
But action verbs don’t just mean verbs that have you running around (although, “to run” is definitely an action verb.) “To read” is an action verb, although we are usually sitting or standing when we do it (and if you are one of those folx who can read while on the treadmill, be happy you are coordinated enough to do that; you are performing two actions at the same time.)
An action verb is a description in opposition to a verb that is a state, such as “to be sad” or “to be cold”. “To learn” is an action verb because it is not a state of being (note the “be” in those nonaction verbs.)
We are taught in writing to use active voice as much as possible, especially as it gives the reader an immediacy that the passive voice doesn’t. And verbs like “to teach” feel more action-y than verbs like “to learn.” And when we know that we have less than 5 minutes (give or take, I’m not up on the marketing stats) to earn the attention of a reader, we need as much feeling of immediacy as we can get.
The active voice also tends to make our writing shorter. Although, “What will we learn about the universe from 3I/Atlas?” is just about the same length.
Maybe I should give it a pass when I see it in an article title; I guess it is serving a purpose. But as an editor, it really bothers me. When editing, I am looking for these types of verb misuses. I’m also looking for verb issues like “she spoke softly” when it could be “she whispered”. You need to be on the look out for those -ly words; when you see them, ask yourself, if there is a most specific verb that can be used.
[NOTE: his is an EDITING task vice a PROOFREAD task. It’s one reason you need an editor and a proofreader.]
So please, DO NOT do this with your verbs within an article (or essay or blog, etc.). Writers need to select the most appropriate and most accurate verb possible. This is especially true when editing technical writing.
Remember that the purpose of writing is communication with a reader. Clarity matters.
So why use the wrong verb?
Have you seen this type of error when skimming article titles to find one you want to read?
Tara Moeller - Editing 