Garner's Modern American Usage

Rating:
Summary: A worthy heir to Fowler
Review: For three generations, a single book dominated the market as the authoritative reference in matters of grammar, style, and usage in the English language: "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage" by H.W. Fowler, first published in 1926, ably revised by Sir Ernest Gowers in 1965, and now in its third edition (published 1996). But by the century's last quarter, the modern English language -- particularly its American dialect -- had begun outgrowing Fowler, and several newer guides began competing with it. The third (1996) edition of Fowler was a disappointment, and left the field without a clear leading authority.

That gap was filled in 1998, when Bryan A. Garner wrote "A Dictionary of Modern American Usage" (published by the Oxford University Press, which also published Fowler). Finally, someone had written a book that matched Fowler -- not only in its erudition, but also in its accessible style, and even its wry sense of humor. And Garner's book had the advantages of being written both in modern times for a modern audience, and in the United States by an American author about American English. The book is a gem, and as authoritative a reference as you will find in this field in the last several decades (and probably the next several too).

"Garner's Modern American Usage" is this oustanding work's second edition, now retitled after its author in view of the acclaim that the first edition earned. A new edition is appearing after only five years because, as Garner explains, "changing usage isn't really the primary basis for a new edition of a usage guide: it's really a question of having had five more years for research." The payoff shows. And the second edition builds upon the first: the first edition was a dictionary of words in usage, rather than words about usage, and therefore assumed that the reader possessed a certain working knowledge of basic grammatical terms and concepts. For example, the first edition didn't define such basic terms as "sentence," "phrase," "clause," "word," or "part of speech." The second edition appends a glossary that defines many such basic concepts. It also appends, as did the first edition, an 11-page chronology of books about usage, which illustrates both the rich tradition that Garner's work joins, as well as the tremendous resources upon which he drew in producing this magnum opus.

Rating:
Summary: A worthy heir to Fowler
Review: For three generations, a single book dominated the market as the authoritative reference in matters of grammar, style, and usage in the English language: "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage" by H.W. Fowler, first published in 1926, ably revised by Sir Ernest Gowers in 1965, and now in its third edition (published 1996). But by the century's last quarter, the modern English language -- particularly its American dialect -- had begun outgrowing Fowler, and several newer guides began competing with it. The third (1996) edition of Fowler was a disappointment, and left the field without a clear leading authority.

That gap was filled in 1998, when Bryan A. Garner wrote "A Dictionary of Modern American Usage" (published by the Oxford University Press, which also published Fowler). Finally, someone had written a book that matched Fowler -- not only in its erudition, but also in its accessible style, and even its wry sense of humor. And Garner's book had the advantages of being written both in modern times for a modern audience, and in the United States by an American author about American English. The book is a gem, and as authoritative a reference as you will find in this field in the last several decades (and probably the next several too).

"Garner's Modern American Usage" is this oustanding work's second edition, now retitled after its author in view of the acclaim that the first edition earned. A new edition is appearing after only five years because, as Garner explains, "changing usage isn't really the primary basis for a new edition of a usage guide: it's really a question of having had five more years for research." The payoff shows. And the second edition builds upon the first: the first edition was a dictionary of words in usage, rather than words about usage, and therefore assumed that the reader possessed a certain working knowledge of basic grammatical terms and concepts. For example, the first edition didn't define such basic terms as "sentence," "phrase," "clause," "word," or "part of speech." The second edition appends a glossary that defines many such basic concepts. It also appends, as did the first edition, an 11-page chronology of books about usage, which illustrates both the rich tradition that Garner's work joins, as well as the tremendous resources upon which he drew in producing this magnum opus.

Rating:
Summary: Mindful of tradition, clarity, and beauty of English
Review: I have to admit that whenever I hear the phrase "Modern Usage" I pause and proceed with concern explecting some new assault on tradition, clarity, and beauty. However, this is a very sound and worthy book. It is intelligent in its choice of what it covers. Bryan Garner doesn't wander off into esoteric weeds or theoretical debates. Instead, he picks 700 or so practical topics and offers clear explanations and examples that help the reader understand not only what is proper usage but also why it is proper usage.

Some have pointed to the first two editions of Fowler, and they are apt comparisons. I do have a copy of the most recent Fowler done by Burchfield. Some dislike that edition. I find it useful with caveats, however, I like this book much more. And I use it more, which is the real test isn't it.

I think this is a superb book for students and for anyone who cares about what they write. I am glad it is on my home office shelf and you also put one in easy reach.

Rating:
Summary: Mindful of tradition, clarity, and beauty of English
Review: I have to admit that whenever I hear the phrase "Modern Usage" I pause and proceed with concern explecting some new assault on tradition, clarity, and beauty. However, this is a very sound and worthy book. It is intelligent in its choice of what it covers. Bryan Garner doesn't wander off into esoteric weeds or theoretical debates. Instead, he picks 700 or so practical topics and offers clear explanations and examples that help the reader understand not only what is proper usage but also why it is proper usage.

Some have pointed to the first two editions of Fowler, and they are apt comparisons. I do have a copy of the most recent Fowler done by Burchfield. Some dislike that edition. I find it useful with caveats, however, I like this book much more. And I use it more, which is the real test isn't it.

I think this is a superb book for students and for anyone who cares about what they write. I am glad it is on my home office shelf and you also put one in easy reach.

Rating:
Summary: best of its kind
Review: I teach business writing at a major PR firm, and this is the text I give to all my students. I refer to it myself at least once a week. The book's highest purpose, however, is to settle bets with other writers and editors. If Garner says it, that's the gospel.

Rating:
Summary: The Best
Review: I've got them all. This one is -- hands down -- the best. The new edition is (like the first) thorough and well researched. It is also utterly devoid of the pompous condescension that makes Fowler seem like such a crank. I keep Fowler's around for a good laugh (it's so much fun to read about how people who use a particular word or phrase are "idiots"), but there's something fundamentally inhumane about this sort of pedantry. The new Fowler retreats from this tone quite a bit, but it replaces it with a kind of linguistic democracy. For Burchfield, the most popular way is almost always the preferred way.

Garner takes the middle road. He doesn't insult people with tirades about the evils of words like "enthuse" or "personalize." Instead, he calmly explains that some words are more precise than others, that some words are entirely imprecise, and that shades of meaning need to be understood and maintained.

An essential text for the American wordsmith.

Rating:
Summary: The Best
Review: I've got them all. This one is -- hands down -- the best. The new edition is (like the first) thorough and well researched. It is also utterly devoid of the pompous condescension that makes Fowler seem like such a crank. I keep Fowler's around for a good laugh (it's so much fun to read about how people who use a particular word or phrase are "idiots"), but there's something fundamentally inhumane about this sort of pedantry. The new Fowler retreats from this tone quite a bit, but it replaces it with a kind of linguistic democracy. For Burchfield, the most popular way is almost always the preferred way.

Garner takes the middle road. He doesn't insult people with tirades about the evils of words like "enthuse" or "personalize." Instead, he calmly explains that some words are more precise than others, that some words are entirely imprecise, and that shades of meaning need to be understood and maintained.

An essential text for the American wordsmith.

Rating:
Summary: A new master of best usage
Review: Okay, I admit it: I'm one of those people who reads for pleasure fat tomes like _Fowler's Modern English Usage_, Follett's _Modern American Usage_, and Bernstein's _Dos, Don'ts and Maybes of English Usage_. But I've been a freelance copyeditor for a couple of decades, so I'm entitled. I fell in love with Garner's _Dictionary of Modern American Usage_ when it appeared in 1998, and the present volume is mostly a (renamed) complete revision and updating of that. He also wrote the standard "Grammar and Usage" chapter for the 15th edition of _The Chicago Manual of Style_, and a number of books on legal style and writing, so he's certainly qualified. Perhaps more important, his own writing style is crystal-clear, conveying exactly what the reader needs to know in making writing choices. (I met him once in Dallas, and I have to say he speaks as clearly and judiciously as he writes.) Some of the entries are very timely ("Ground Zero"), while some of the mis-usage problems he identifies have been around for some time and probably aren't going away soon ("cohort" and "decimate"). Some, I didn't realize *were* problems, like the plural (or not) of "gyros" and the proper designation for residents of Hawaii, but having read the entries, I shall remember them in future. And for some issues, Garner calls out the big guns, such as the struggle to make people use apostrophes properly. (Apostrophizing a plural should be a felony, especially when it appears on a public sign or in a newspaper!) There are very few gaps in the coverage, so up-to-date is he. Though I did note that in the discussion of the ellipsis, attention is given only to its use to indicate an omission in a quotation -- not to the equally valid use to indicate a pause in narrative or dialogue, . . . which, after all, is probably its principal nonacademic usage. But any serious writer or editor will want a copy of this volume on his Ready Reference shelf.

Rating:
Summary: Roll over Fowler; tell Partridge the news...
Review: This is a brilliant book. It is as erudite and authoritative as a usage book should be, but without offensive cant or needless pedantry. It is scrupulously edited and handsomely presented by the Oxford University Press in their usual exemplary manner. While Bryan A.Garner concentrates on American English usage (that's where the market is) he is no stranger to "BrE" or any other kind of English. Just to give you a hint about what makes the man tick and why he is now considered the preeminent authority on "grammar, usage, and style" (as a blurb on the book's cover--for a change--rightly has it), consider these words from the Preface to the Second Edition:

"People have asked whether enough has really changed in English usage since 1998 to justify a new edition. The answer is that changing usage isn't really the primary basis for a new edition of a usage guide: it's really a question of having had five more years for research."

He isn't kidding. What Garner brings to this usage book that completely dwarfs* all previous efforts is a gargantuan research regimen. This is clear from the thousands of examples of usage presented, both good and bad, from all manner of publications: newspapers, small town and big city; novels, classic and contemporary; magazines and journals, literary and scientific, etc. Garner obviously has a passion for words and seems determined to let no genre or form of reading matter go unread or unscrutinized. I didn't find an example from one of my reviews, but (given the many faux pas that I have, alas, committed in nearly 800 reviews) I fully expect that dubious honor in the third edition!). Yes, Garner is onto the Web and indeed he frequently quotes statistics of use garnered (sorry!) from such sites as NEXIS and WESTLAW allowing him to say, for example, about "analytical" and "analytic" that "the long form is five times as common as the short."

This is an interesting development in usage books. As Garner notes in his introductory essay, "Making Peace in the Language Wars," there are two types of linguists, "prescribers" and "describers," or as it used to be said (more narrowly) there are "prescriptive grammarians" and "descriptive grammarians," and never the twain shall meet. The former in both cases, as Garner has it, "seek to guide" while the latter "seek to discover...how native speakers actually use their language."

Obviously, no one who writes a usage guide can be a strict describer. Indeed throughout the history of usage guidance most of the authors have been primarily prescribers: "this is the way the word should be used"; "this is improper" and even "this is an abomination!" Garner follows the tradition and even goes so far as to label, for example, the employment of "defunk" for "defunct" as a "ghastly blunder."

So he is clearly a prescriber (as he admits). But unlike most of his illustrious predecessors he is a describer as well. He lets us see how the language is actually used and he gracefully bows (on occasion) as much to the preponderance of usage as he does to venerable authority and his own good judgment. Thus we have a usage dictionary for the 21st century, alive, vital and moving carefully with the tide, but not swept away by it.

Needless to say I do have a few disagreements. I will present a couple for sport, fully realizing that he is the authority and I am merely a respectful, sometime critic.

For example, Garner writes a very nice little essay on sexist language entitled "SEXISM." However there is no comparable entry on "racism" or word entries for "African-American," "Afro-American," or "black." I think there should be, as some guidance in word choice here is sometimes sorely needed. I have the feeling that Garner is not so much dodging the subject as he is fully preparing himself for the next edition. There is an entry on "ageism" (so spelled indicates Garner although the similar word "aging" is without the "e"), but no discussion of various usage concerns.

Also, he writes (on page 418 in the essay entry "HYPERCORRECTION" under item "J."): "When a naturalized...foreignism appears, the surrounding words--with a few exceptions...--should be English. Thus, one refers to <finding the mot juste> not <finding le mot juste> (a common error among the would-be literati)." However, I would say that using the French "le" as part of the phrase is a useful emphasis, much as one, when speaking, might emphasize the word "the" by pronouncing it with a long "e."

These and perhaps other picayunes aside, let me say unequivically that this book is a treasure trove of knowledge about our language second to none that I have ever read and a singular please to read and peruse.

I should also mention the three splendid appendices: A 13-page "Select Glossary" on words about words ("gerund," "homograph," etc.); a very interesting "Lifeline of Books on Usage" beginning in 1762; and a "Select Bibliography" of dictionaries, usage books, grammars, and books on style.

*This use of "dwarf" as a transitive verb is not given in Garner's book, although there is an entry on the noun form. I checked Webster's Second International and my spelling (not the ugly "dwarves") agrees with theirs.

Rating:
Summary: Roll over Fowler; tell Partridge the news...
Review: This is a brilliant book. It is as erudite and authoritative as a usage book should be, but without offensive cant or needless pedantry. It is scrupulously edited and handsomely presented by the Oxford University Press in their usual exemplary manner. While Bryan A.Garner concentrates on American English usage (that's where the market is) he is no stranger to "BrE" or any other kind of English. Just to give you a hint about what makes the man tick and why he is now considered the preeminent authority on "grammar, usage, and style" (as a blurb on the book's cover--for a change--rightly has it), consider these words from the Preface to the Second Edition:

"People have asked whether enough has really changed in English usage since 1998 to justify a new edition. The answer is that changing usage isn't really the primary basis for a new edition of a usage guide: it's really a question of having had five more years for research."

He isn't kidding. What Garner brings to this usage book that completely dwarfs* all previous efforts is a gargantuan research regimen. This is clear from the thousands of examples of usage presented, both good and bad, from all manner of publications: newspapers, small town and big city; novels, classic and contemporary; magazines and journals, literary and scientific, etc. Garner obviously has a passion for words and seems determined to let no genre or form of reading matter go unread or unscrutinized. I didn't find an example from one of my reviews, but (given the many faux pas that I have, alas, committed in nearly 800 reviews) I fully expect that dubious honor in the third edition!). Yes, Garner is onto the Web and indeed he frequently quotes statistics of use garnered (sorry!) from such sites as NEXIS and WESTLAW allowing him to say, for example, about "analytical" and "analytic" that "the long form is five times as common as the short."

This is an interesting development in usage books. As Garner notes in his introductory essay, "Making Peace in the Language Wars," there are two types of linguists, "prescribers" and "describers," or as it used to be said (more narrowly) there are "prescriptive grammarians" and "descriptive grammarians," and never the twain shall meet. The former in both cases, as Garner has it, "seek to guide" while the latter "seek to discover...how native speakers actually use their language."

Obviously, no one who writes a usage guide can be a strict describer. Indeed throughout the history of usage guidance most of the authors have been primarily prescribers: "this is the way the word should be used"; "this is improper" and even "this is an abomination!" Garner follows the tradition and even goes so far as to label, for example, the employment of "defunk" for "defunct" as a "ghastly blunder."

So he is clearly a prescriber (as he admits). But unlike most of his illustrious predecessors he is a describer as well. He lets us see how the language is actually used and he gracefully bows (on occasion) as much to the preponderance of usage as he does to venerable authority and his own good judgment. Thus we have a usage dictionary for the 21st century, alive, vital and moving carefully with the tide, but not swept away by it.

Needless to say I do have a few disagreements. I will present a couple for sport, fully realizing that he is the authority and I am merely a respectful, sometime critic.

For example, Garner writes a very nice little essay on sexist language entitled "SEXISM." However there is no comparable entry on "racism" or word entries for "African-American," "Afro-American," or "black." I think there should be, as some guidance in word choice here is sometimes sorely needed. I have the feeling that Garner is not so much dodging the subject as he is fully preparing himself for the next edition. There is an entry on "ageism" (so spelled indicates Garner although the similar word "aging" is without the "e"), but no discussion of various usage concerns.

Also, he writes (on page 418 in the essay entry "HYPERCORRECTION" under item "J."): "When a naturalized...foreignism appears, the surrounding words--with a few exceptions...--should be English. Thus, one refers to not (a common error among the would-be literati)." However, I would say that using the French "le" as part of the phrase is a useful emphasis, much as one, when speaking, might emphasize the word "the" by pronouncing it with a long "e."

These and perhaps other picayunes aside, let me say unequivically that this book is a treasure trove of knowledge about our language second to none that I have ever read and a singular please to read and peruse.

I should also mention the three splendid appendices: A 13-page "Select Glossary" on words about words ("gerund," "homograph," etc.); a very interesting "Lifeline of Books on Usage" beginning in 1762; and a "Select Bibliography" of dictionaries, usage books, grammars, and books on style.

*This use of "dwarf" as a transitive verb is not given in Garner's book, although there is an entry on the noun form. I checked Webster's Second International and my spelling (not the ugly "dwarves") agrees with theirs.