Garner's Modern American Usage Pdf Free Download
Come across a Problem?
Thanks for telling u.s.a. about the problem.
Friend Reviews
Reader Q&A
Be the showtime to enquire a question about Garner's Modern American Usage
Community Reviews
This volume has the most cogent explanation of the that/which stardom that I have ever seen in my life! Plus, I'd never heard of "remote relatives" until last night, and now I know simply what those are (and no, I know my interest in usage is a little goofy, but I still am non your corny grandpa, and can easily resist that obvious pun). If I somehow manage to absorb and remember all the data in this highly readable guide, my usage should become so flawless that sociopaths on the street will instinctively sense my ability, and will be and then intimidated that they'll leave alone when I'k walking at night.
...more
as another reviewer below has already claimed, this will likely detect place on my desk as the kickoff non-m
my all-time friend Twitch gave me this at trivia 2010-12-26. i promptly brought it home and read, enthralled, until 0545 or so. my date was pissed off, but Mssr. Garner and I danced the night away. every truthful pedant ought acquire and become intimate with a copy. beyond that, i tin't say much more beyond DFW'southward Harper's review (which anyone not damaged in a profound, Oliver Sacksish-way will enjoy).every bit another reviewer below has already claimed, this will likely find identify on my desk-bound every bit the first non-math book worth keeping at ready hand.
...more
Garner'southward style is that of the very cool english teacher: he will darn well correct your usage, just he'll often do information technology in such an engaging manner that you almost don't mind being corrected. And when he sticks it to your own pet peeves you may (as I frequently practice) observe yourself nodding—or even vocalizing—understanding!
Here's an excerpt of Garner'southward irregardless entry: "A semiliterate PORTMANTEAU Give-and-take[over 200 pocket-sized-capped terms like this take essay-length entries unto themselves] from irrespective and regardless, should have been stamped out long ago," — then Garner, as he does with most entries, cites several examples of misuse in major American periodicals, and he includes the author'southward name! — "Perhaps the most surprising instance of this atrocity occurs in a linguistics text, four times on a single folio…Although this widely scorned NONWORD seems unlikely to spread much more than it already has, conscientious users of language must continually swat it when they meet information technology." A semiliterate barbarism! CAN I GET AN AMEN!?
OTHER HELPFULNESS AND COOLNESS:
- Garner has supplied an index of the prenominate small-capped essays. (As I said, the alphabetical entires are peppered with at least a couple hundred of these essays.)
- An exhaustive Glossary of Grammatical, Rhetorical and other Language-Related Terms. This alone was worth the price of the book. Here'southward Garner's principal definition of rhetoric itself: "one. The art of speaking suitably on any bailiwick." Meet? Understated but firm, lightly stylish, pitch-perfect! (And what's also absurd if yous ever hear Garner speak—check out the aforementioned conversation with D. F. Wallace—his soft Texas emphasis and relatively balmy fashion complement perfectly his gently authoritative writing style.)
PERHAPS THE COOLEST Thing OF ALL: THE Language-CHANGE Index
If an entry concerns a usage fault (as opposed to uncomplicated clarifications) the error is rated on a scale of one to five, which scale Garner calls a Language-Modify Index—the key for which is included in the lesser margin of every odd-numbered page. On this scale, a one signifies a consummate rejection by all writers, with five indicating that while it may have been an error at ane time, it is now fully acceptable.
2 examples.
one. Using the word dearth, which means a mere scarcity of something, to announce an absence of that matter is rated ane. It is a misuse of the word as defined and therefore to exist avoided. While over on the facing page...
2. Using daylight-savings time instead of the technically correct daylight-saving time was considered erroneous recently plenty to exist included, but is rated five since the only writers today who object to its use are hardcore snoots. (Snoot denotes an arrogant person of form, just is pressed into duty here as the word with which many members of the so-called Grammer Constabulary accept begun referring to themselves, and is, in its own entry, defined rather nicely by Garner himself as "a well informed linguistic communication-lover and a word-connoisseur.")
I can't fully endorse that approach, however. While Garner wants his recommendations to be "genuinely plausible," recognizing the linguistic communication "as it currently stands," actual usage is at the lesser of his criteria and can easily be trumped past other criteria, not all of which are objective.
For example, the guide marks a word as undesirable if it is ne
Bryan Garner has a specific approach to language usage and Garner's Mod English Usage, the fourth edition of his usage advice, teaches information technology to others.I can't fully endorse that approach, however. While Garner wants his recommendations to be "genuinely plausible," recognizing the linguistic communication "every bit it currently stands," actual usage is at the bottom of his criteria and tin easily be trumped by other criteria, not all of which are objective.
For case, the guide marks a word every bit undesirable if it is new, seeks to take over another give-and-take'south definition, or is simply a variant of some other word. To me this is unreasonable. Why impoverish the language by assigning merely one word to one meaning?
In English, in that location are often many answers, something many usage guides, Garner's included, ignore. Only the quickly crumbling Merriam-Webster'southward Dictionary of English Usage (DEU) takes pains to point out those various answers. So when I use Garner'southward, I compare it with DEU and other grammer and usage guides, and and so I make a decision. Information technology's not the merely book I consult, but it is an of import one.
Then how does the new edition compare to the previous?
To find out, read the full review at Copyediting.
...more than
I accept to admit though-- upon farther reflection, I still don't get the stardom between "onetime" and "former". I re-read Garner's explanation, in which he opines that erstwhile is necessary because "former" and "one-fourth dimension" aren't sufficient, and realized that he never actually explains when you lot'd use i vs the other! The singl
Update nine/25/12: so, I bought this book. Glad I did-- been flipping through it some more, and information technology's quite fascinating. Garner can be quite funny even if he is a snoot.I have to acknowledge though-- upon farther reflection, I still don't become the distinction between "one-time" and "onetime". I re-read Garner's caption, in which he opines that old is necessary because "former" and "one-time" aren't sufficient, and realized that he never actually explains when y'all'd use one vs the other! The single usage example given in his entry on the topic isn't very elucidatory.
I know, "elucidatory" is awkward... no doubt Garner has a sternly worded essay on the subject field. Mea culpa.
---
I checked this out from the library just realizing now, I need to buy it.
A while back, I accused the New Yorker of using fancy words only for the sake of it. I of the examples I gave was "erstwhile"-- why wouldn't you utilize the simpler word "former" instead? Don't they mean the aforementioned affair? Garner'southward entry on this topic straightened me out, I get it at present. Right on
...more than
As a Brit, Americanisms tin can grate; as can native speakers, at times, truth be told. I bear no ill will. We share a language that diverges and yet ofttimes converges owing to our connected world. Bryan brings much of our shared language together sensitively and absorbingly.
If you love language, and so this book is a thing of beauty.
This is a brilliant volume. It is equally erudite and authoritative equally a usage book should be, but without offensive deceit or needless pedantry. It is scrupulously edited and handsomely presented by the Oxford University Press in their usual exemplary mode. While Bryan A.Garner concentrates on American English language usage (that's where the market place is) he is no stranger to "BrE" or any other kind of English. Just to give y'all a hint about what makes the man tick and
Roll over Fowler; tell Partridge the news...This is a brilliant volume. It is as brainy and authoritative as a usage volume should be, but without offensive cant or needless pedantry. It is scrupulously edited and amply presented past the Oxford University Press in their usual exemplary way. While Bryan A.Garner concentrates on American English language usage (that's where the marketplace is) he is no stranger to "BrE" or any other kind of English. But to requite y'all a hint about what makes the man tick and why he is now considered the preeminent say-so on "grammar, usage, and style" (every bit a blurb on the book'due south comprehend--for a change--rightly has information technology), consider these words from the Preface to the 2d 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 footing for a new edition of a usage guide: it'southward really a question of having had 5 more than years for enquiry."
He isn't kidding. What Garner brings to this usage volume 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 boondocks and large city; novels, classic and contemporary; magazines and journals, literary and scientific, etc. Garner obviously has a passion for words and seems determined to permit no genre or grade of reading affair go unread or unscrutinized. I didn't find an example from 1 of my reviews, but (given the many faux pas that I accept, alas, committed in nearly 800 reviews) I fully expect that dubious honour in the tertiary edition!). Yes, Garner is onto the Web and indeed he frequently quotes statistics of apply garnered (distressing!) from such sites every bit NEXIS and WESTLAW assuasive him to say, for example, nigh "analytical" and "analytic" that "the long form is five times as mutual every bit the short."
This is an interesting development in usage books. Equally Garner notes in his introductory essay, "Making Peace in the Language Wars," in that location are two types of linguists, "prescribers" and "describers," or as it used to exist said (more narrowly) there are "prescriptive grammarians" and "descriptive grammarians," and never the twain shall meet. The onetime in both cases, as Garner has it, "seek to guide" while the latter "seek to notice...how native speakers really use their language."
Apparently, no 1 who writes a usage guide can be a strict describer. Indeed throughout the history of usage guidance nigh 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 and so far as to label, for example, the employment of "defunk" for "defunct" as a "ghastly blunder."
So he is clearly a prescriber (every bit he admits). But unlike nearly of his illustrious predecessors he is a describer equally well. He lets u.s.a. run across 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 adept judgment. Thus we have a usage dictionary for the 21st century, live, vital and moving advisedly with the tide, only non swept away by it.
Needless to say I practise have a few disagreements. I will present a couple for sport, fully realizing that he is the authority and I am merely a respectful, onetime critic.
For example, Garner writes a very nice little essay on sexist language entitled "SEXISM." Yet there is no comparable entry on "racism" or word entries for "African-American," "Afro-American," or "blackness." I think there should exist, equally some guidance in discussion choice here is sometimes sorely needed. I accept the feeling that Garner is not so much dodging the subject as he is fully preparing himself for the adjacent edition. At that place is an entry on "ageism" (and so spelled indicates Garner although the similar discussion "aging" is without the "e"), merely no discussion of various usage concerns.
Also, he writes (on folio 418 in the essay entry "HYPERCORRECTION" under item "J."): "When a naturalized...foreignism appears, the surrounding words--with a few exceptions...--should be English language. Thus, one refers to not (a mutual fault among the would-exist literati)." However, I would say that using the French "le" equally 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 volume is a treasure trove of noesis most our language second to none that I take ever read and a singular please to read and peruse.
I should also mention the three splendid appendices: A xiii-page "Select Glossary" on words near 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 manner.
*This utilize 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'south Second International and my spelling (not the ugly "dwarves") agrees with theirs.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, "Teddy and Teri"
...more
, Amy Einsohn, and Carol Fisher Saller 
, Garner 
is one of the earth's foremost government on the English linguistic communication. In a world that takes its syntactic cues from the idiotic rantings of media personalities, sportswriters, and (more often than not) guys on Idiot box competing to come across who can construct the nigh tautologies during 30-second bursts of inanity, Mod English Modern English Usage is an indispensable volume for writers, editors, and those who requite a damn virtually English language. Along with Steven Pinker , Amy Einsohn, and Carol Fisher Saller , Garner is one of the world'southward foremost government on the English language language. In a world that takes its syntactic cues from the idiotic rantings of media personalities, sportswriters, and (mostly) guys on TV competing to see who tin can construct the most tautologies during 30-second bursts of inanity, Modern English Usage (formerly Modernistic American Usage) is a much-needed left hook aimed squarely at addled brains. I utilise this volume literally every twenty-four hour period (and by "literally," I mean that I actually practice). It'south easily the best of its brood, with Garner its shepherd. Oftentimes unjustly accused of being a strict prescriptivist [partly considering a large swath of readers either (a) think all things must be 100% blackness or 100% white or (b) don't like looking things up or changing prose they consider "supercute" simply because information technology'due south Wrong—spiral those readers who call back otherwise], Garner offers perspective and advice both constructive and actionable.
As for changes from the prior edition, the book includes over ane,000 new entries. Garner also procured rights to utilize Google Ngram charts and word-frequency ratios for many entries. He included a word-change index in the prior edition that numerically rated each word's status from verboten to fully accepted, but the addition of Ngram data adds validity and more than context for entries.
Garner'due south measured wit is still readily evident, and usage examples continue to include enough of published work by famous writers and famous people in full general, which could be interpreted however one likes (I tend to interpret it to mean that many famous people are buffoons when they write, but I may be a little less charitable than virtually), but mostly they make for existent examples in real settings, which is skilful for perspective at the very to the lowest degree.
I'm glad I was able to write this review without undue snarkiness or sarcasm. I seem to take a habit of that from fourth dimension to fourth dimension.
...more
Why is this volume and so special? Several reasons:
First, it'southward comprehensive. Pretty much any question you lot can retrieve of concerning usage is covered in the nearly 1,000 pages of this book, with detailed explanations, the usage's history and examples from print. Information technology doesn't just tell what's correct or adequate, information technology tells you why.
2d, the human being knows of which he speaks. His concise, thoug Of the myriad dictionaries, grammar books and usage guides out there, 1 stands out every bit the argument-ender: Garner'south.
Why is this volume and then special? Several reasons:
Get-go, information technology'south comprehensive. Pretty much any question you tin call up of concerning usage is covered in the most 1,000 pages of this volume, with detailed explanations, the usage's history and examples from print. It doesn't but tell what's correct or acceptable, it tells yous why.
2d, the human being knows of which he speaks. His concise, thoughtful entries are based on copious research and meticulous attention. Plus, they are clearly expressed with a minimum of jargon.
3rd, Garner is firmly in the middle of the strict prescriptivists and the strict descriptivists. What this means is that he's not an onetime fusspot clinging to outdated rules of grammar; neither is he an anything-goes endorser of unclear or ambiguous expression. He knows when information technology'southward hopeless to rail against usages formerly labeled "substandard," and he knows when to preserve useful distinctions.
Fourth, while many reference guides for English language are more than British in their points of view, Garner specifically addresses American usage. He does note differences between U.S. and British English, also as American regionalisms and dialect expressions.
(Full disclosure: I served on the panel of critical readers for the 3rd edition of Garner'southward Mod American Usage.) ...more
The forrad, about the grammer wars, is a terrific read. Otherwise, I rely heavily on Garner's when I have usage questions, just as any right-thinking person would.
Well, I don't know that I would say I read Garner'due south, exactly.The frontwards, nigh the grammar wars, is a terrific read. Otherwise, I rely heavily on Garner's when I have usage questions, just every bit whatsoever right-thinking person would.
...more
There are two types of entries in this book: word entries and essay entries. The word entries are curt and interesting, containing data on use, misuse, pronunciation, and meaning. The essay
I heard nigh this book from an essay by David Foster Wallace called Authorization and American Usage. Wallace had smashing things to say about Garner and his massive effort at compiling this usage guide. And yeah, it is a usage guide, not a dictionary--despite my friends' insistence on it being a lexicon.There are two types of entries in this book: word entries and essay entries. The word entries are brusk and interesting, containing information on use, misuse, pronunciation, and meaning. The essay entries are longer pieces of writing, anywhere from a paragraph to several pages, dealing with English language usage topics like punctuation, redundancy, syntax, and more than.
David Foster Wallace recognized how important and innovative this book was when it was published, and I'chiliad glad that he recommended it so highly. My understanding of English--its electric current country and careful utilize-- is much ameliorate for having gone through this work. Reading Garner has helped develop my intuition of proper English language, which is important for those who care about their use of language.
...more
But otherwise I completely defer to his goo
Mostly enjoying this merely have a few niggles. For instance, I only think he'due south plain wrong about constructions such as "in an access of adept spirits, the frat boys tipped 12 cows in one evening" that the "access" is a lilliputian-used just grammatical construction of long-standing. Undoubtedly those writing such sentences confused access with backlog, intending "in an excess of skillful spirits," regardless of whether "access of good spirits" is grammatical or non.But otherwise I completely defer to his good sense!
...more
I'll probably be referring to Modern American Usage for the rest of my life.
I go on this volume by my side every time I write an important document. It offers pragmatic, evidence-based advice on idiomatic writing. Additionally, it's more entertaining to read than a considerable corporeality of fiction works.I'll probably exist referring to Modern American Usage for the residuum of my life.
...more
Used only the 4th edition (2016): Garner'southward Modern English Usage (GMEU).
This is an unbelievably helpful book. An absolute necessity for academics and other writers.Used only the fourth edition (2016): Garner's Modern English language Usage (GMEU).
...more than News & Interviews
Welcome dorsum. Only a moment while we sign y'all in to your Goodreads account.
DOWNLOAD HERE
Posted by: ginaborgy2001.blogspot.com
0 Comments