What do you think?
Rate this book
Errors in English and Ways to Correct Them: The Practical Approach to Correct Word Usage, Sentence Structure, Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar
Errors in English is both an at-a-glance reference and a step-by-step guide for language
skill development. Inside you'll find:
Clean, up-to-date langauge rules
A simple approach to sentence structure
Guidelines on punctuation, abbreviations, and word usage
Solutions to common spelling problems
Proofreader's marks
skill development. Inside you'll find:
Clean, up-to-date langauge rules
A simple approach to sentence structure
Guidelines on punctuation, abbreviations, and word usage
Solutions to common spelling problems
Proofreader's marks
You'll find the answers to all your language needs in the bold, easy-to-follow format of
Errors in English and Ways to Correct Them.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1962
10 people are currently reading
115 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 18, 2023
This is another one of those books on English style and usages, with good and bad stuff mixed in together. While the title suggests errors in usage, a good part of the book is about errors - in the author’s opinion - in style.
Use a concrete word, not abstract words, Shaw tells his readers. Concrete typically involves one of the senses. As examples of such words, he gives us “forsythia, guillotine, lemony,” as if these are clearer than abstractions like “duty, honor, motive, persuasion and truth.” What is it about the latter that is hard to grasp, especially when the context is given? Concrete words are also abstractions of sorts, and what in the hell, really, is a forsythia?
Avoid localisms, Shaw advises, and he gives numerous examples from the West, Southwest, and South but only three from the Northeast, suggesting his bias as to what is local and what is not. Besides, how does one write about the Southwest without using the terms appropriate for that locale?
“Grammar is that science,” Shaw writes, which prompts the question about what is and is not science, particularly given English’s variable usage. Grammar he insists is descriptive, not prescriptive, except in this book it is pretty much not that. Usage, he says, “must be ‘reputable’; that is, in diction one should follow standards set by that large body of accomplished speakers and writers who we have reason to believe know the language best.”
One can’t use the possessive for an inanimate object, Shaw says, but then he notes that many exceptions are ok: “A day’s work, a moment’s notice,” for example, yet he doesn't tell his readers what the takeaway here might be and why these exceptions are work and what they tell us about English usage. It just “is.”
And then there are the principal parts of verbs that indicate the present and past time, but not the future. And what is a “part,” and what is “principal” - why these words? A principal part includes the “present infinitive” (e.g. I play today), but I’m wondering about the infinitive “to play” (in addition to why the expression “infinitive,” why is that term used in both a restrictive-present and nonrestrictive-no time sense. Shaw merely tells us without telling us why.
Shaw tells us that “angry with a person” is correct idiomatic usage, not the unidiomatic “angry at.” If English usage is about clarity of communication, why is the former preferred over the latter when the meaning of both is clear enough. Does the latter really warrant a slap of the hand?
Then, on the topic of exact use, Shaw says to avoid “pretty” because it’s an overused word. He much prefers us to use “attractive, charming or exquisite.” I’d say he’s overthinking this - “pretty” is pretty much like “and” or “or” or “the,” and perfectly appropriate as a general statement that conveys a picture and from which we then move on to more important things. One should avoid “contact,” he writes, and say something like “communicate with,” or “call upon.” Really? Using unnecessary details is known as “prolixity,” he says, and here I’d say you are better off with the wordier, “using unnecessary details.”
Shaw cloaks his usage (grammar and style”) with “science” when all of what he puts forward is a collection of more or less common usage and subjective stylistic preferences as reinforced by common journalistic writing styles. While this is a negative review, I’ve marked places in this book to go back to, for reference. His last section on sentence diagramming looks promising and I might try my hand at that, for the first time, really. Then again, his diagram has slants, curves, dots, perpendiculars and horizontals. In the end, it’s all one big maze, and in his intro to that section he refers to the previous pages of the book to find meanings for various terms, when, what he’s talking about is his glossary and, then, when I look up “preposition,” it’s not there.
Use a concrete word, not abstract words, Shaw tells his readers. Concrete typically involves one of the senses. As examples of such words, he gives us “forsythia, guillotine, lemony,” as if these are clearer than abstractions like “duty, honor, motive, persuasion and truth.” What is it about the latter that is hard to grasp, especially when the context is given? Concrete words are also abstractions of sorts, and what in the hell, really, is a forsythia?
Avoid localisms, Shaw advises, and he gives numerous examples from the West, Southwest, and South but only three from the Northeast, suggesting his bias as to what is local and what is not. Besides, how does one write about the Southwest without using the terms appropriate for that locale?
“Grammar is that science,” Shaw writes, which prompts the question about what is and is not science, particularly given English’s variable usage. Grammar he insists is descriptive, not prescriptive, except in this book it is pretty much not that. Usage, he says, “must be ‘reputable’; that is, in diction one should follow standards set by that large body of accomplished speakers and writers who we have reason to believe know the language best.”
One can’t use the possessive for an inanimate object, Shaw says, but then he notes that many exceptions are ok: “A day’s work, a moment’s notice,” for example, yet he doesn't tell his readers what the takeaway here might be and why these exceptions are work and what they tell us about English usage. It just “is.”
And then there are the principal parts of verbs that indicate the present and past time, but not the future. And what is a “part,” and what is “principal” - why these words? A principal part includes the “present infinitive” (e.g. I play today), but I’m wondering about the infinitive “to play” (in addition to why the expression “infinitive,” why is that term used in both a restrictive-present and nonrestrictive-no time sense. Shaw merely tells us without telling us why.
Shaw tells us that “angry with a person” is correct idiomatic usage, not the unidiomatic “angry at.” If English usage is about clarity of communication, why is the former preferred over the latter when the meaning of both is clear enough. Does the latter really warrant a slap of the hand?
Then, on the topic of exact use, Shaw says to avoid “pretty” because it’s an overused word. He much prefers us to use “attractive, charming or exquisite.” I’d say he’s overthinking this - “pretty” is pretty much like “and” or “or” or “the,” and perfectly appropriate as a general statement that conveys a picture and from which we then move on to more important things. One should avoid “contact,” he writes, and say something like “communicate with,” or “call upon.” Really? Using unnecessary details is known as “prolixity,” he says, and here I’d say you are better off with the wordier, “using unnecessary details.”
Shaw cloaks his usage (grammar and style”) with “science” when all of what he puts forward is a collection of more or less common usage and subjective stylistic preferences as reinforced by common journalistic writing styles. While this is a negative review, I’ve marked places in this book to go back to, for reference. His last section on sentence diagramming looks promising and I might try my hand at that, for the first time, really. Then again, his diagram has slants, curves, dots, perpendiculars and horizontals. In the end, it’s all one big maze, and in his intro to that section he refers to the previous pages of the book to find meanings for various terms, when, what he’s talking about is his glossary and, then, when I look up “preposition,” it’s not there.
Read
September 28, 2015it is the best book ever in my life very informative and useful.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews