What do you think?
Rate this book
The Highly Selective Dictionary for the Extraordinarily Literate by Eugene Ehrlich
Between TV talk shows, radio call-in programs, email and the Internet, spontaneous-talk media has skyrocketed in the '90s. People are interacting more frequently and more fervently than ever before, turning the English language into an indecipherable mess. Now, this unique and concise compendium presents the most confused and misused words in the language today -- words misused by careless speakers and writers everywhere. It defines, discerns and distinguishes the finer points of sense and meaning. Was it fortuitous or only fortunate? Are you trying to remember, or more fully recollect? Is he uninterested or disinterested? Is it healthful or healthy, regretful or regrettable, notorious or infamous? The answers to these and many more fascinating etymological questions can be found within the pages of this invaluable (or is it valuable?) reference.
Hardcover
First published July 2, 1997
62 people are currently reading
709 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
September 11, 2019
“Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once declared, ‘Language is the skin of living thought.’ Just as your skin encloses your body, so does your vocabulary bound your mental life.”I know, I know — it seems to be the very apogee of absurdity for one to actually “read” a dictionary. But, Eugene Ehrlich has created a sort of paradoxical anti-dictionary; one to be considered “an antidote to the ongoing poisonous effects wrought by the forces of linguistic darkness.”
So, yes, I did, in fact, read all 192 pages of this lexicographic compendium (though not in one sitting). I'm sure I remain just as vulnerable to cacology* as ever (if not more so)—the same likely holds true for grandiloquence†.
Will I now be able to settle all logomachies‡? It's unlikely. Have I become a master of paronomasia§? Nay, I have not.
And yet, this newfound knowledge is not impracticable — a word I can now use with greater confidence thanks to Ehrlich's special attention to common solecisms**.
impracticable (im-PRAK-ti-ke-bel) adjective incapable of being put into practice. Do not confuse impracticable with impractical, which means unwise or not practical and is used most often to denote unrealistic behavior in the management of one's finances.So, while it's rare for me to disagree with the author of my favorite dictionary (Ambrose Bierce and his Devil's Dictionary ), I must say that this is a book that any logophile could love.
____________________________________________
* cacology (ke-KOL-e-jee) noun 1. bad choice of words. 2. poor pronunciation.
† grandiloquent (gran-DIL-e-kwent) adjective 1. using pompous language. 2. given to boastful talk.
‡ logomachy (loh-GOM-e-kee) noun, plural logomachies 1. a dispute about words. 2. a meaningless battle of words.
§ paronomasia (PAR-e-noh-MAY-zhe) noun 1. word play; punning. 2. a pun.
** solecism (SOL-e-SIZ-em) noun 1. a mistake in the use of language. 2. an offense against good manners or etiquette
July 4, 2015
A dictionary with the easy words eliminated. Good idea. You can actually read the whole thing, like I did. The only thing it lacks is a bit of fun along the way. Pretty straightforward definitions. The Preface had an interesting story about defining the word "door" in a 1934 dictionary. What an effort! For what purpose?
March 12, 2009
Doesn't claim to be a comprehensive dictionary, but only to give those words that are often confused and misused. Plus lots (I feel as if I should use "a plethora" just to honor the book) of words that aren't used nearly as often as they should be.
Read
February 6, 2012I picked this up on a whim, though I was dubious. Reading the preface, my reservations were confirmed. I have never approved of prescriptive dictionaries, grammars, etc. If I want to use the passive or subjunctive modes, I'll bloody well do so. And I never had any difficulty pronouncing 'nuclear', bearing in mind Walt Kelly's comment that it wasn't new and it wasn't clear.
Nor do I have any problem with dictionaries defining quotidian words (and yes, this word is included). Who doesn't know what a door is? Someone whose native language uses a different root for the same term, perhaps? And when trying to figure out more complex words, it helps to have the root for ordinary words.
This book doesn't have many roots, which too often leaves the reader at a loss in trying to explain WHY the word means what it does. Also, in common with many 'unabridged' dictionaries, it's lacking many words one WOULD like a definition of (two examples spring at once to mind: the word 'Amadan', which seems to be from Celtic folklore, and to refer to a Fool, both in the sense of an imbecile and in the more sacred sense of a jester; and the word 'geas', referring to a spell intended to cause a person to do something specific, which may be derived from an AS word for 'go'). But in most cases, it wouldn't help just to list and define the word, anyway.
I have to say, by the way, that I find statistics about vocabularies inherently suspicious. While I had encountered many of the words I've encountered so far in this book in some sources (and often didn't know what they meant exactly, except from context; but as often I did know), I have to say that vocabulary assumptions vary by orders of magnitude depending on defining assumptions (do you include all the conjugate forms of a verb as one word, for example? How about declensions of nouns? Are adjectival or adverbial forms separate words?
I should also point out that there's at least one anglocentric (or it may just be chauvinistic regarding Indo-European words in general) assumption: that all languages are noun-based. In fact some languages are verb-based (Acoma Kerasun, for example, has no nouns at all. There are only verbs and participles, and 'nouns' are essentially established by inflection of verbs and participles: as articles and pronouns largely are in Latin.)
I'll read this through (It's a fast read, and shouldn't take too long). But as of the end of the Bs, I'd say it will make a handier reference for the things it DOES cover than the weightlifter's edition of the 'unabridged' dictionary...but the (almost complete) lack of etymology may still require some other source as a supplement.
As I suspected: preachy and pedantic in the extreme. Even in the actual entries there's far too much speaking in the second person. I never could abide being patronized.
Nor do I care what 'editors' want. I've always tended to despise editors, and when I heard Harriet Vane (Wimsey) in Busman's Honeymoon refer to editors as 'ghouls and cannibals' (for all it's a little redundant), I found words for an opinion I'd always held.
It's useful to make distinctions between similar words, to express nuances in meaning. But many of those distinctions are a posteriori, which may be one of the reasons that etymological information is not given. Many of the distinctions that are listed herein are not older than the 18th century. They developed as spellings were standardized, and represented divergence in meaning in words of the exact same derivation (eg 'coven' and 'convent', both of which came from the root 'convene'--'come together').
Furthermore, the lack of words I WOULD like more help with is palpable. Many of them are technical terms ('transilience'; 'bradyons', 'luxons', and 'tachyons' come at once to mind). Some I don't expect to find. I have to look up 'heteroscedasticity' every time I refer to it, because I never remember what it means (random ranges in variables, looks like). On the other hand, while it's useful to have a definition of 'hebdomadal' (weekly), I would also have appreciated a definition of 'sabbatical' which explains why professors still think it's a good plan to take every seventh YEAR off as well as every seventh day (it's biblical. EVERYBODY is supposed to take every seventh year off. It's just that the professors have retained this plan.)
As a reference book, I won't keep this as a bedside reference. But I'll put it in my reference section, because it's not COMPLETELY useless. Just irritating and incomplete.
Nor do I have any problem with dictionaries defining quotidian words (and yes, this word is included). Who doesn't know what a door is? Someone whose native language uses a different root for the same term, perhaps? And when trying to figure out more complex words, it helps to have the root for ordinary words.
This book doesn't have many roots, which too often leaves the reader at a loss in trying to explain WHY the word means what it does. Also, in common with many 'unabridged' dictionaries, it's lacking many words one WOULD like a definition of (two examples spring at once to mind: the word 'Amadan', which seems to be from Celtic folklore, and to refer to a Fool, both in the sense of an imbecile and in the more sacred sense of a jester; and the word 'geas', referring to a spell intended to cause a person to do something specific, which may be derived from an AS word for 'go'). But in most cases, it wouldn't help just to list and define the word, anyway.
I have to say, by the way, that I find statistics about vocabularies inherently suspicious. While I had encountered many of the words I've encountered so far in this book in some sources (and often didn't know what they meant exactly, except from context; but as often I did know), I have to say that vocabulary assumptions vary by orders of magnitude depending on defining assumptions (do you include all the conjugate forms of a verb as one word, for example? How about declensions of nouns? Are adjectival or adverbial forms separate words?
I should also point out that there's at least one anglocentric (or it may just be chauvinistic regarding Indo-European words in general) assumption: that all languages are noun-based. In fact some languages are verb-based (Acoma Kerasun, for example, has no nouns at all. There are only verbs and participles, and 'nouns' are essentially established by inflection of verbs and participles: as articles and pronouns largely are in Latin.)
I'll read this through (It's a fast read, and shouldn't take too long). But as of the end of the Bs, I'd say it will make a handier reference for the things it DOES cover than the weightlifter's edition of the 'unabridged' dictionary...but the (almost complete) lack of etymology may still require some other source as a supplement.
As I suspected: preachy and pedantic in the extreme. Even in the actual entries there's far too much speaking in the second person. I never could abide being patronized.
Nor do I care what 'editors' want. I've always tended to despise editors, and when I heard Harriet Vane (Wimsey) in Busman's Honeymoon refer to editors as 'ghouls and cannibals' (for all it's a little redundant), I found words for an opinion I'd always held.
It's useful to make distinctions between similar words, to express nuances in meaning. But many of those distinctions are a posteriori, which may be one of the reasons that etymological information is not given. Many of the distinctions that are listed herein are not older than the 18th century. They developed as spellings were standardized, and represented divergence in meaning in words of the exact same derivation (eg 'coven' and 'convent', both of which came from the root 'convene'--'come together').
Furthermore, the lack of words I WOULD like more help with is palpable. Many of them are technical terms ('transilience'; 'bradyons', 'luxons', and 'tachyons' come at once to mind). Some I don't expect to find. I have to look up 'heteroscedasticity' every time I refer to it, because I never remember what it means (random ranges in variables, looks like). On the other hand, while it's useful to have a definition of 'hebdomadal' (weekly), I would also have appreciated a definition of 'sabbatical' which explains why professors still think it's a good plan to take every seventh YEAR off as well as every seventh day (it's biblical. EVERYBODY is supposed to take every seventh year off. It's just that the professors have retained this plan.)
As a reference book, I won't keep this as a bedside reference. But I'll put it in my reference section, because it's not COMPLETELY useless. Just irritating and incomplete.
May 4, 2017
I grabbed this mostly because of its title, but was impressed by the accessible way it untangles often mistaken words.
January 29, 2010
hilarious and informative at the same time
August 29, 2025
Am I a sucker for dictionaries? Yes. Yes, I am. The Highly Selective Dictionary for the Extraordinarily Literate caught my eye first by the high-falutin' title and secondly because it's a dictionary.
I expected a bit of snark in the writing but it was refreshingly straightforward, offering definitions for commonly misused words and showing the differences in their usage. I appreciated the clarifications on how each is pronounced (oh, THAT's how it's said. Oops.) I dipped in and out of various sections rather than reading it A to Z, landing on words I'd never seen and words I'd seen but didn't know exactly what they meant.
Would I recommend this dictionary? I certainly would if you're a person who cares about words.
I expected a bit of snark in the writing but it was refreshingly straightforward, offering definitions for commonly misused words and showing the differences in their usage. I appreciated the clarifications on how each is pronounced (oh, THAT's how it's said. Oops.) I dipped in and out of various sections rather than reading it A to Z, landing on words I'd never seen and words I'd seen but didn't know exactly what they meant.
Would I recommend this dictionary? I certainly would if you're a person who cares about words.
December 9, 2019
Utterly delightful.
March 2, 2021
mentally ticklish, always enjoyable
Read
November 21, 2022Read the first chapter then realized it was really a dictionary. Picked through a few definitions then moved on.
December 15, 2013
Dictionaries are always useful to have, kind of like having a color wheel in Photoshop instead of just a select square palette -- it gives you more options. I think my favorite part of this one, though, is the addendum under criterion warning (rather sarcastically) that people will "eagerly seize upon unfamiliar words and phrases, which somehow are thought to invest our thoughts with the appearance of learnedness."
Which is ... kind of the whole point of the book, isn't it?
Which is ... kind of the whole point of the book, isn't it?
December 30, 2015
A reference book. Despite the quite pretentious title, it seems really helpful. It has discussions of words that are easily confusing and the context of interesting words that are new to me. Also helpful is the pronunciation of each word; I've never been great with my pronunciation...I was a stubborn child that didn't want to do things the right way.
April 21, 2010
I learned a little, but really don't feel ALL these words are unknown by intelligent people. I did appreciate explanations for a few words which are confused with one another (or misused - i.e. flaunt and flout).
July 7, 2010
Still doesn't have half the words used by Pound.
November 10, 2014
I fashioned myself a lexicographer at one time. I began assembling a collection of word books. This was one of them. Good words here. Nothing wonderful as a book, but good words included.
July 3, 2012
Fits your dictionary needs perfectly.
Read
January 2, 2022What a supercilious snoot this author is.
Want to read
June 20, 2017mentioned in June Casagrande's Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews