What do you think?
Rate this book
Founding Grammars: How Early America's War over Words Shaped Today's Language
Who decided not to split infinitives? With whom should we take issue if in fact, we wish to boldly write what no grammarian hath writ before?
In Founding Grammars, Rosemarie Ostler delves into the roots of our grammar obsession to answer these questions and many more. Standard grammar and accurate spelling are widely considered hallmarks of a good education, but their exact definitions are much more contentious - capable of inciting a full-blown grammar war at the splice of a comma, battles readily visible in the media and online in the comments of blogs and chat rooms. With an accessible and enthusiastic journalistic approach, Ostler considers these grammatical shibboleths, tracing current debates back to America's earliest days, an era when most families owned only two books - the Bible and a grammar primer. Along the way, she investigates colorful historical characters on both sides of the grammar debate in her efforts to unmask the origins of contemporary speech. Linguistic founding fathers like Noah Webster, Tory expatriate Lindley Murray, and post-Civil War literary critic Richard Grant White, all play a featured role in creating the rules we've come to use, and occasionally discard, throughout the years. Founding Grammars is for curious readers who want to know where grammar rules have come from, where they've been, and where they might go next.
In Founding Grammars, Rosemarie Ostler delves into the roots of our grammar obsession to answer these questions and many more. Standard grammar and accurate spelling are widely considered hallmarks of a good education, but their exact definitions are much more contentious - capable of inciting a full-blown grammar war at the splice of a comma, battles readily visible in the media and online in the comments of blogs and chat rooms. With an accessible and enthusiastic journalistic approach, Ostler considers these grammatical shibboleths, tracing current debates back to America's earliest days, an era when most families owned only two books - the Bible and a grammar primer. Along the way, she investigates colorful historical characters on both sides of the grammar debate in her efforts to unmask the origins of contemporary speech. Linguistic founding fathers like Noah Webster, Tory expatriate Lindley Murray, and post-Civil War literary critic Richard Grant White, all play a featured role in creating the rules we've come to use, and occasionally discard, throughout the years. Founding Grammars is for curious readers who want to know where grammar rules have come from, where they've been, and where they might go next.
309 pages, Hardcover
First published May 12, 2015
27 people are currently reading
394 people want to read
About the author
Rosemarie Ostler
8 books9 followersLinguist and freelance writer Rosemarie Ostler loves exploring the rich record of American language use. Her latest book, The United States of English, tells the story of how the language of the colonists grew into the multiple Englishes that Americans speak today. Earlier books cover such diverse topics as the origins of our most common expressions and the centuries-long fight over what counts as proper grammar. Rosemarie lives in Eugene, Oregon.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
September 20, 2015
Once the Revolutionary War ended, the grammar wars began. What sort of English should the citizens of the brand new, still experimental, democracy of the United States speak? Some wanted to make a break with the fusty old English of their former British overlords, while others thought it more seemly and reputable to stick with traditional standards as their young country took its place on the world stage. Both sides agreed on the compelling importance of grammar--many early American homes had only two volumes in their “libraries”--a Bible and a grammar book.
Founding Grammars is a history of the United States and its people as seen through the very interesting angle of language and education. Filled with fascinating facts and lots of interesting characters, the book begins with Noah Webster and his personal quest to update American English, and ends with the heated controversy of 1961 (and beyond) over changes made in third edition of the dictionary that bears Webster’s name--a controversy that still continues today in internet arguments over prescriptive versus descriptive grammar. Other historical figures in the book include Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Davy Crockett, Mark Twain, and publisher Horace Greeley.
Founding Grammars is a history of the United States and its people as seen through the very interesting angle of language and education. Filled with fascinating facts and lots of interesting characters, the book begins with Noah Webster and his personal quest to update American English, and ends with the heated controversy of 1961 (and beyond) over changes made in third edition of the dictionary that bears Webster’s name--a controversy that still continues today in internet arguments over prescriptive versus descriptive grammar. Other historical figures in the book include Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Davy Crockett, Mark Twain, and publisher Horace Greeley.
February 28, 2018
Solid history. I enjoyed it, although I can easily see that it won't hold interest for a lot of people. Speaking from the linguists' side, there are a few key points here that I really wish the rest of the country would get on board with.
(Hell yes that's sentence-final on purpose.)
(Hell yes that's sentence-final on purpose.)
October 16, 2015
This is an historical survey of the study of American grammar and lexis and the development of its reference materials.
Author Rosemary Ostler begins and ends with the work and spirit of Noah Webster who felt strongly that American English should be embraced. English as spoken in the US had evolved to a new language, as was fitting for a new country. British grammar texts or dictionaries were no longer relevant. Webster created an American English grammar text which he promoted by lecturing all around the country. The dictionary that bears his name came after an editing career.
Controversies raged as to whether grammarians should promote a “correct” form or merely describe the language as it is used. Ostler shows the demise of teaching Latin for learning grammar, and then demise of teaching grammar for learning English. Today, grammar takes a back seat to style (“precision”, “brevity” and “clarity”, p. 236) but the debate on “correct form” continues on the internet.
You learn the genesis of the bans on double negatives and split infinitives, the elimination of the “k” in “music”, “public” and similar words, the introduction of sentence diagramming and more. Ostler shows the very heated debates over the changing language: “It is I” vs. “It is me.” For purists “jeopardize” and “finalize” were not really words and a should be a “scientist” be a “sciencist”?
Author Rosemary Ostler also defines the historical and literary sources for new words. The Jacksonian Era, the era of the common man (think Davy Crockett), brought new words from frontier and a greater acceptance of grammatical informality. The Grant years brought words of excess and Theodore Roosevelt, slang. Dime novels added sensational words, and Mark Twain supplied regional vocabulary. As new words were added, many were condemned as “base”, “deplorable” and “unspeakable”.
A host of personalities are given a personal treatment along with their contributions. Besides a long narrative on Noah Webster, you learn about seldom spoken of people. For instance more than 10 pages are devoted to a bio of Lindley Murray, the author of a foundational grammar text and another 10 for Fitzedward Hall, a Sanskrit scholar and major contributor to the “Oxford English Dictionary”. Stripped of the many bios, the book would be reduced by, perhaps, 30-40%.
This is a user friendly niche history. If you are interested in the topic, it is a must read; If you are not, it will not pull you in.
Author Rosemary Ostler begins and ends with the work and spirit of Noah Webster who felt strongly that American English should be embraced. English as spoken in the US had evolved to a new language, as was fitting for a new country. British grammar texts or dictionaries were no longer relevant. Webster created an American English grammar text which he promoted by lecturing all around the country. The dictionary that bears his name came after an editing career.
Controversies raged as to whether grammarians should promote a “correct” form or merely describe the language as it is used. Ostler shows the demise of teaching Latin for learning grammar, and then demise of teaching grammar for learning English. Today, grammar takes a back seat to style (“precision”, “brevity” and “clarity”, p. 236) but the debate on “correct form” continues on the internet.
You learn the genesis of the bans on double negatives and split infinitives, the elimination of the “k” in “music”, “public” and similar words, the introduction of sentence diagramming and more. Ostler shows the very heated debates over the changing language: “It is I” vs. “It is me.” For purists “jeopardize” and “finalize” were not really words and a should be a “scientist” be a “sciencist”?
Author Rosemary Ostler also defines the historical and literary sources for new words. The Jacksonian Era, the era of the common man (think Davy Crockett), brought new words from frontier and a greater acceptance of grammatical informality. The Grant years brought words of excess and Theodore Roosevelt, slang. Dime novels added sensational words, and Mark Twain supplied regional vocabulary. As new words were added, many were condemned as “base”, “deplorable” and “unspeakable”.
A host of personalities are given a personal treatment along with their contributions. Besides a long narrative on Noah Webster, you learn about seldom spoken of people. For instance more than 10 pages are devoted to a bio of Lindley Murray, the author of a foundational grammar text and another 10 for Fitzedward Hall, a Sanskrit scholar and major contributor to the “Oxford English Dictionary”. Stripped of the many bios, the book would be reduced by, perhaps, 30-40%.
This is a user friendly niche history. If you are interested in the topic, it is a must read; If you are not, it will not pull you in.
May 4, 2022
Chronicles America's history of pearl-clutching over the eroding distinction between shall and will, saying "it is me" instead of "it is I," so-called split infinitives, use of singular they, and the crime of ending a sentence with a preposition. Arguments we've been suffering in one form or another for close to three hundred years now.
This survey of English grammar starts in the 1740s with Thomas Dilworth and covers work by his fellow grammarians Robert Lowth and Noah Webster in the 1780s, Lindley Murray in 1790s, and Goold Brown, Samuel Kirkham, William Bently Fowle, William Cardell, and John Lewis in the 1820s. For these men, and their audiences, there was an explicit connection between good grammar and moral virtue, and thus, between grammar and class.
The 1860s saw the rise of verbal critics like Richard Grant White and Edward S. Gould, who saw that same connection, but instead of writing about grammar to educate, they wrote to scold. As Ostler puts it, "Unlike the grammarians of earlier times, they weren't interested in teaching good speaking and writing habits. Their aim was to draw a clear line between well-educated, refined, truly ladylike and gentlemanly people and those in the lower echelons. Their underlying message was the same one often heard today—the half-educated, with their slang and misguided word inventions, and misunderstood terms, were wrecking the language."
They're those people who pop up to say, "I think you meant whom."
But have no fear, linguistic science is on the case. In the 1870s, educated philologists arrived on the scene to counter these blowhards. Linguists like Thomas Lounsbury, William Dwight, and Fitzedward Hall were serious academic scholars. They considered themselves professionals and saw the verbal critics as ignorant amateurs, which they mostly were, basing their grammar rules on little more than what they felt was correct. Linguists, however, treated the study of language as a science, bringing the scientific principles of careful observation and description to grammar and usage studies.
With this conflict between feelings and actual research firmly established, the book goes on to cover Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, with Strunk's half published in 1918 and White's revision (and additions) published in 1959, the frenzy over Webster's Third and its inclusion of "ain't" in the 1960s, and finally the rise of structural linguistics. Structural linguists, also called descriptive linguists, study languages with the aim of describing them as accurately and completely as possible, but instead of tracking the historical development of a language as the philologists did, they're interested in analyzing its current structure—how we use language, not how we should use language.
Then the book ends with a brief update on the perpetual fight between prescriptive and descriptive grammar and how the arguments aren't that much different than those of the past three hundred years; they've just moved to the internet.
Nicely organized and tied together well, this accessible introduction to the history of English grammar makes a convincing argument for the way the rules of grammar reinforced class distinctions and defined American culture. It considers contemporaneous technological advancements like the popular press of the 1840s, with Sarah Josepha Hale, magazine editress (her word) and promoter of genteel speech (and writer of "Mary had a little lamb"!), as well as the colorful language used in penny papers like Horace Greeley's New-York Tribune to disseminate information to the masses, the cheap dime novels that appeared in the 1860s, and novelists like Mark Twain and William Dean Howells writing in dialect around the same time. It even dips into the political, looking at how linguistic trends were reflected in (or rejected by) the speech of politicians like Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, David Crockett, Teddy Roosevelt, and JFK.
I learned a lot from this and along with Kory Stamper's Word by Word, it made my position on the Kinsey Prescriptive/Descriptive Grammar Scale go from the manicured middle ground of "you know, a little of each" to deep into the natural wilds of the Descriptive zone. Because it turns out these dudes (so many of them named William) made up what "good" grammar is based largely on their understanding of Latin, which of course is perfectly orderly because no one's ruining it by actually using it. Fuck those guys. They can't tell me what to do. I'm no longer going to worry about what's proper grammar. The only grammar I'm interested in is the kind that communicates a message, hopefully with style, possibly with some four letter words, but always with my audience in mind.
Like, even now, I can hear the ghostly complaining of all those Williams about my using "hopefully" to mean "it is hoped." But, again, to the devil with you, sirs, that's how people use it.
The book has a full bibliography and end notes (indicated in the text) that cite specific sources, but there's a lot of primary sources "as quoted in" secondary sources, which is always a bit dodgy, making this more of a popular work than a scholarly one.
Contains: unenlightened attitudes about chronic illness and disability.
This survey of English grammar starts in the 1740s with Thomas Dilworth and covers work by his fellow grammarians Robert Lowth and Noah Webster in the 1780s, Lindley Murray in 1790s, and Goold Brown, Samuel Kirkham, William Bently Fowle, William Cardell, and John Lewis in the 1820s. For these men, and their audiences, there was an explicit connection between good grammar and moral virtue, and thus, between grammar and class.
The 1860s saw the rise of verbal critics like Richard Grant White and Edward S. Gould, who saw that same connection, but instead of writing about grammar to educate, they wrote to scold. As Ostler puts it, "Unlike the grammarians of earlier times, they weren't interested in teaching good speaking and writing habits. Their aim was to draw a clear line between well-educated, refined, truly ladylike and gentlemanly people and those in the lower echelons. Their underlying message was the same one often heard today—the half-educated, with their slang and misguided word inventions, and misunderstood terms, were wrecking the language."
They're those people who pop up to say, "I think you meant whom."
But have no fear, linguistic science is on the case. In the 1870s, educated philologists arrived on the scene to counter these blowhards. Linguists like Thomas Lounsbury, William Dwight, and Fitzedward Hall were serious academic scholars. They considered themselves professionals and saw the verbal critics as ignorant amateurs, which they mostly were, basing their grammar rules on little more than what they felt was correct. Linguists, however, treated the study of language as a science, bringing the scientific principles of careful observation and description to grammar and usage studies.
With this conflict between feelings and actual research firmly established, the book goes on to cover Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, with Strunk's half published in 1918 and White's revision (and additions) published in 1959, the frenzy over Webster's Third and its inclusion of "ain't" in the 1960s, and finally the rise of structural linguistics. Structural linguists, also called descriptive linguists, study languages with the aim of describing them as accurately and completely as possible, but instead of tracking the historical development of a language as the philologists did, they're interested in analyzing its current structure—how we use language, not how we should use language.
Then the book ends with a brief update on the perpetual fight between prescriptive and descriptive grammar and how the arguments aren't that much different than those of the past three hundred years; they've just moved to the internet.
Nicely organized and tied together well, this accessible introduction to the history of English grammar makes a convincing argument for the way the rules of grammar reinforced class distinctions and defined American culture. It considers contemporaneous technological advancements like the popular press of the 1840s, with Sarah Josepha Hale, magazine editress (her word) and promoter of genteel speech (and writer of "Mary had a little lamb"!), as well as the colorful language used in penny papers like Horace Greeley's New-York Tribune to disseminate information to the masses, the cheap dime novels that appeared in the 1860s, and novelists like Mark Twain and William Dean Howells writing in dialect around the same time. It even dips into the political, looking at how linguistic trends were reflected in (or rejected by) the speech of politicians like Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, David Crockett, Teddy Roosevelt, and JFK.
I learned a lot from this and along with Kory Stamper's Word by Word, it made my position on the Kinsey Prescriptive/Descriptive Grammar Scale go from the manicured middle ground of "you know, a little of each" to deep into the natural wilds of the Descriptive zone. Because it turns out these dudes (so many of them named William) made up what "good" grammar is based largely on their understanding of Latin, which of course is perfectly orderly because no one's ruining it by actually using it. Fuck those guys. They can't tell me what to do. I'm no longer going to worry about what's proper grammar. The only grammar I'm interested in is the kind that communicates a message, hopefully with style, possibly with some four letter words, but always with my audience in mind.
Like, even now, I can hear the ghostly complaining of all those Williams about my using "hopefully" to mean "it is hoped." But, again, to the devil with you, sirs, that's how people use it.
The book has a full bibliography and end notes (indicated in the text) that cite specific sources, but there's a lot of primary sources "as quoted in" secondary sources, which is always a bit dodgy, making this more of a popular work than a scholarly one.
Contains: unenlightened attitudes about chronic illness and disability.
February 8, 2019
I will be honest with everyone out there: if you don’t care about the history of American English and how we have the rules of grammar that we have today, then this book will be mind-numbingly dull. However, as an English and History guy, I found most of this book interesting. Previously, I didn’t have a firm grasp on how we went from King’s English to today’s American English. This is not a book that can be read in a couple of nights. Some parts I glossed over, and in other sections I was totally absorbed in the people and stories of how our language came to be. P.S: I shall/I will....are both perfectly acceptable.
August 22, 2019
That's right. Five stars for a book about grammar. Except that it's not really about grammar by itself. Ostler does a wonderful job of tracing how the debate about what constitutes good grammar reflects greater divisions within American society: between the rich and the poor, between the educated and less educated, between the East and the West. She simplifies the grammatical specificities of the debates sufficiently to enable an understanding of the larger conflict. Figures from Noah Webster to Daniel Boone, to Andrew Jackson, to Theodore Roosevelt, not to mention some female editors of popular publications as well all figure in this story.
May 10, 2017
Super historical exposition of grammar in the USA for people who enjoy reading about this sort of thing.
February 17, 2019
Although I am quite fascinated with language, usage , relationships from one to another, I am less interested in whose dictionary changed grammar more.
May 24, 2016
"Founding Grammars" is a fresh, accessible, historical survey of the "grammar wars" that have unfolded within the United States from the time of independence to the present day.
In Rosemarie Ostler's telling, the grammar wars have involved two groups. On one side are people who believe that there is a fixed, proper standard of English to which people should aspire and schools should teach. On the other side are people who believe that standard (US) English should emerge from how people actually speak and therefore should evolve over time.
The central figure in Ostler's book is Noah Webster, he of dictionary fame. During the later half of the 1700s and the early half of the 1800s, Webster worked to define language standards based on how people actually spoke rather than in relation to (in his view) arbitrary standards set down in grammar books written in England. As Ostler demonstrates, almost all of the popular grammar books Webster criticized copied each other, and over time their suggestions hardened into rules that have endured into the present. (Ironically, of course, many great English writers like Milton and Shakespeare and great works like the King James Bible frequently violated those rules.)
The conflict between Webster's approach to language and that of such popular English grammarians as Lindley Murray (who was born in colonial Pennsylvania yet lived much of his adult life in England) is the focus of slightly more than half of "Founding Grammars." Following Webster's death, the "grammar wars" morphed into a new form--one that pitted verbal critics who attempted to define good English in relation to class and taste against linguists (linguistics was a new academic field that emerged in the late 1800s) who essentially argued that there was no naturally ideal version of English and instead that language emerged from the practices of speakers and writers.
In the last part of the book, Ostler describes the persistence of the "grammar wars" throughout the 1900s and into the 2000s. Examples of more recent fights between those who believe in the existence of a standard grammar to which people should aspire and those who take a more organic view of language include the reaction to (and enduring popularity of) "The Elements of Style," the perennial arguments over whether the inclusion of "slang" words in the dictionary debases English, and the passionate arguments over how much grammar should be taught in school and how it should be taught (e.g., sentence diagramming). While the forums in which the debates may have changed, with blogs having replaced pamphlets, the substantive argument remains the same.
Perhaps the most important observation that Ostler shares in her rich book is the extent to which society has lost sight of the big picture in the fog of the "grammar wars." For almost all of the historical figures Ostler profiles, including the grammarians of the early 1800s, their primary interest was less in fixing a standard form of English than in providing practical advice to ordinary people--students, adult learners, and women, in particular--who wished to improve their language and communications skills yet had little access to the kinds of education available to the wealthy. Put differently, the rules were never meant to be rules in the first place.
In Rosemarie Ostler's telling, the grammar wars have involved two groups. On one side are people who believe that there is a fixed, proper standard of English to which people should aspire and schools should teach. On the other side are people who believe that standard (US) English should emerge from how people actually speak and therefore should evolve over time.
The central figure in Ostler's book is Noah Webster, he of dictionary fame. During the later half of the 1700s and the early half of the 1800s, Webster worked to define language standards based on how people actually spoke rather than in relation to (in his view) arbitrary standards set down in grammar books written in England. As Ostler demonstrates, almost all of the popular grammar books Webster criticized copied each other, and over time their suggestions hardened into rules that have endured into the present. (Ironically, of course, many great English writers like Milton and Shakespeare and great works like the King James Bible frequently violated those rules.)
The conflict between Webster's approach to language and that of such popular English grammarians as Lindley Murray (who was born in colonial Pennsylvania yet lived much of his adult life in England) is the focus of slightly more than half of "Founding Grammars." Following Webster's death, the "grammar wars" morphed into a new form--one that pitted verbal critics who attempted to define good English in relation to class and taste against linguists (linguistics was a new academic field that emerged in the late 1800s) who essentially argued that there was no naturally ideal version of English and instead that language emerged from the practices of speakers and writers.
In the last part of the book, Ostler describes the persistence of the "grammar wars" throughout the 1900s and into the 2000s. Examples of more recent fights between those who believe in the existence of a standard grammar to which people should aspire and those who take a more organic view of language include the reaction to (and enduring popularity of) "The Elements of Style," the perennial arguments over whether the inclusion of "slang" words in the dictionary debases English, and the passionate arguments over how much grammar should be taught in school and how it should be taught (e.g., sentence diagramming). While the forums in which the debates may have changed, with blogs having replaced pamphlets, the substantive argument remains the same.
Perhaps the most important observation that Ostler shares in her rich book is the extent to which society has lost sight of the big picture in the fog of the "grammar wars." For almost all of the historical figures Ostler profiles, including the grammarians of the early 1800s, their primary interest was less in fixing a standard form of English than in providing practical advice to ordinary people--students, adult learners, and women, in particular--who wished to improve their language and communications skills yet had little access to the kinds of education available to the wealthy. Put differently, the rules were never meant to be rules in the first place.
June 17, 2015
If your mother, or your 10th grade English teacher, instilled in you the difference between "shall" and "will" and when to use them -- one way in the first person, the opposite in second and third -- you will like this book. Broadly speaking this is a social history of the English language in the United States since the American Revolution. It focuses primarily on the Great Men of Words who shaped how America speaks -- Webster, Strunk, and White along with Jackson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt. It is not as much of a linguistic study as I had hoped, but is a lively and interesting depiction of American history through a war of words.
Read
July 27, 2023Truly my kind of book!
I loved reading about the passionate arguments between grammarians and non-grammarians throughout the decades. So. Much. Drama. And crazy how many battles were lost and how as a result I’ve been using nauseous “incorrectly” (but now correctly) my whole life (among other things).
And Richard Grant White. Happy to know of him! I’m going to read all his non-Shakespeare-related stuff. He would have made a terrific reality show participant. He won me over when he said that “gubernatorial” didn’t make any sense because there is no word “gubernator”. I’m tempted to call my governor “Gubernator Whitmer” now. You know, for correctness.
If I have one suggestion for a newer edition — I would love more definitions and examples, maybe even block quotes from some of the early grammar books. I don’t remember what rhetoric (as a school subject) is or what false syntax means, for example. And I don’t know what the original meaning of certain words were (I had to find the article referenced - see below - to see how we changed the meaning of “hopefully”).
But all in all, I learned a lot and enjoyed the read!
Aforementioned article: https://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/the_...
I loved reading about the passionate arguments between grammarians and non-grammarians throughout the decades. So. Much. Drama. And crazy how many battles were lost and how as a result I’ve been using nauseous “incorrectly” (but now correctly) my whole life (among other things).
And Richard Grant White. Happy to know of him! I’m going to read all his non-Shakespeare-related stuff. He would have made a terrific reality show participant. He won me over when he said that “gubernatorial” didn’t make any sense because there is no word “gubernator”. I’m tempted to call my governor “Gubernator Whitmer” now. You know, for correctness.
If I have one suggestion for a newer edition — I would love more definitions and examples, maybe even block quotes from some of the early grammar books. I don’t remember what rhetoric (as a school subject) is or what false syntax means, for example. And I don’t know what the original meaning of certain words were (I had to find the article referenced - see below - to see how we changed the meaning of “hopefully”).
But all in all, I learned a lot and enjoyed the read!
Aforementioned article: https://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/the_...
September 23, 2020
Obviously this book is not for everyone. But if you love words, sentence structure norms, and how and why words are included in various dictionaries, then you will enjoy following the careers and opinions of American grammarians, lexicographers, and more.
Before I read this book, I thought my 1990s American Heritage Dictionary was the best around. I ordered and am pleased to place beside it the latest edition from Merriam-Webster. I now have a more complete dictionary reference library.
Yet, I still do not share Mr. Webster’s view that common usage should be accepted over time. And never no never will I accept the use of gift as a verb. It is a noun. That is all.
Before I read this book, I thought my 1990s American Heritage Dictionary was the best around. I ordered and am pleased to place beside it the latest edition from Merriam-Webster. I now have a more complete dictionary reference library.
Yet, I still do not share Mr. Webster’s view that common usage should be accepted over time. And never no never will I accept the use of gift as a verb. It is a noun. That is all.
February 10, 2018
I never thought I would put myself more on the descriptivist side of the grammar wars, but after my first graduate class a year ago, and after reading Ostler's well researched book, I have to agree that while we can document how words are used we cannot dictate how they will be used in the future. When I laugh at the words that were argued over in the past, like "finalize" and "hopefully," I think I can laugh at myself more over my complaints of current language shift. Only dead languages will not form new vocabulary, so let's all enjoy the ride of American English.
November 28, 2017
While not a book for everyone, this is a fascinating look at grammar development in the United States,as well as its effects on history. Ostler takes a semi-balanced approach to the grammar wars that have been plaguing our country since Revolutionary times, although it is pretty clear on which side of the argument she is. I recommend this book to anyone who loves language.
July 21, 2021
This book effectively addresses my passions for history and English at the same time. It’s a fun, easy read…says this English teacher. I enjoyed the tracing of some circuitous logic and the arguments surrounding English speech and writing, all of which feel very current.
August 23, 2025
Well researched examination of a niche topic. While the actual subject is interesting, the content repeats itself constantly and often boils down to 'this person's book talking about someone else's book'
partially-read
October 7, 2020page 122
November 6, 2020
Great for research!
March 12, 2023
My views on grammar are correct. My usage of grammar is probably not correct. But that makes it correct. Cool!
August 19, 2015
Today's post is on Founding Grammars: How Early America's War over Words Shaped Today's Language by Rosemarie Ostler. It is 309 pages long including notes and it published by St. Martin's Press. The cover is blue with a quill and the constitution on it. The intended reader is someone interested in history and grammar. There is no language, no sex, and no violence in this book. There Be Spoilers Ahead.
From the dust jacket- Who decided not to split infinitives? With whom should we take issue if in fact, we wish to boldly write what no grammarian hath writ before?
In Founding Grammars, Rosemarie Ostler delves into the roots of our grammar obsession to answer these questions and many more. Standard grammar and accurate spelling are widely considered hallmarks of a good education, but their exact definitions are much more contentious -- capable of?inciting a full-blown grammar war at the splice of a comma, battles readily visible in the media and online in the comments of blogs and chat rooms.
With an accessible and enthusiastic journalistic approach, Ostler considers these grammatical shibboleths, tracing current debates back to America's earliest days, an era when most families owned only two books -- the Bible and a grammar primer. Along the way, she investigates colorful historical characters on both sides of the grammar debate in her efforts to unmask the origins of contemporary speech. Linguistic founding fathers like Noah Webster, Tory expatriate Lindley Murray, and post-Civil War literary critic Richard Grant White, all play a featured role in creating the rules we've come to use, and occasionally discard, throughout the years.
Founding Grammars is for curious readers who want to know where grammar rules have come from, where they've been, and where they might go next.
Review-This at times is a very entertaining and then it goes into very dry. There is no middle ground, sadly. But that said it was interesting to see where our language, as Americans, comes from and how it has grown. The notes were just for adding citation and did not really much more to the overall narrative. This is not just about how Americans write but also about how we educate ourselves and our children. Ostler takes something that could have been extremely dry and boring and makes a good effort to make it interesting and mostly readable. At times she gets into very detailed items about the how and it takes some time to get through those moments but in the end I think that it is a worthy read.
I give this book a Four out of Five stars. I get nothing for my review and I borrowed this book from my local library.
February 25, 2017
This is not the type of book that you sit and read for long stretches of time (hence it taking me almost six months to finish), but I find grammar fascinating and this book is a great record of how the grammar debate has changed throughout time.
August 15, 2024
I think this book would not appeal to a large audience. It is about the battle of lexicographers and grammarians about whether their work should reflect description or prescription.
July 31, 2015
The title is awful, but this is an interesting book. It reminds me of Shady Characters, but its focus is more limited. It looks at American history thorough the lens of American grammar and word usage. The cast of characters include Noah Webster, Davy Crockett, Horace Greeley, and E.B. White as well as a a cast of folks who I am unfamiliar with as well as presidents Jackson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt.
I'm not a grammar stickler, but I do like to know the rules. Even moreso, I like to know why the rules are in place. I did learn why it is not the best thing in the world to end a sentence with a preposition. Because there is a pause at the end of a sentence, the last word receives extra emphasis. It is a perfect place for a verb or a noun; strong words.
I also learned that the ongoing war between grammarians - AKA verbal critics - and structural linguists makes the steroid wars in the baseball blogosphere look like minor skirmishes.
I'm not a grammar stickler, but I do like to know the rules. Even moreso, I like to know why the rules are in place. I did learn why it is not the best thing in the world to end a sentence with a preposition. Because there is a pause at the end of a sentence, the last word receives extra emphasis. It is a perfect place for a verb or a noun; strong words.
I also learned that the ongoing war between grammarians - AKA verbal critics - and structural linguists makes the steroid wars in the baseball blogosphere look like minor skirmishes.
April 18, 2016
This book does a great job describing the grammar wars that have raged since America was founded. People have really gotten worked up over the years, starting with Noah Webster and continuing to today. It's pretty clear that there were a lot of class issues, with upper class, educated people speaking properly and being moral for doing so.
In the argument over descriptive versus prescriptive linguistics, Sydney Harris wrote, "Our attitude toward language merely reflects our attitude toward more basic matters...If everything is a matter of taste and preference and usage, then we are robbing ourselves of all righteous indignation against evil. So evil people split infinitives, use "they" to refer singular antecedents, and end sentences with prepositions.
As people have commented, arguments about grammar are as tendentious as arguments over theology.
If you like language, you'll like this book.
In the argument over descriptive versus prescriptive linguistics, Sydney Harris wrote, "Our attitude toward language merely reflects our attitude toward more basic matters...If everything is a matter of taste and preference and usage, then we are robbing ourselves of all righteous indignation against evil. So evil people split infinitives, use "they" to refer singular antecedents, and end sentences with prepositions.
As people have commented, arguments about grammar are as tendentious as arguments over theology.
If you like language, you'll like this book.
August 14, 2016
From Noah Webster to Strunk and White, this book explores the many battles over structural and descriptive linguistics. Language, and most particularly grammar, has often been used as a way to gatekeep, mark class distinctions, and even disenfranchise American citizens. Modern readers might be interested to learn that a grammar book by Lindley Murray denounced they as a singular pronoun in 1794, meaning it was in use long before the search for gender neutral pronouns began. A lot of these little debates and proscriptions are fascinating because of how outdated they are. Grammar pedants have been trying to stem the tide of common usage for centuries in this country.
I highly recommend this book to anyone with even a passing interest in grammar or linguistics. It makes an important point.
I highly recommend this book to anyone with even a passing interest in grammar or linguistics. It makes an important point.
October 26, 2023
This is a fascinating look at how English grammar rules were created. Guess what! In many cases it was purely arbitrary. It details the many grammar books that were influential in their own period including the back story to the venerated Strunk and White. Battles over such radical items as split infinitive and words like finalize, jeopardize, donor are analyzed. How many of you knew to jeopard is a verb? Bottom line! If you teach grammar or writing or find grammar interesting, you will enjoy this. I dare to say most other people would not.
November 17, 2015
The grammar police have been with us since pre-Revolutionary times. Probably before that as well, but Rosemarie Ostler is only concerned in Founding Grammars with grammar police in America. The story of Noah Webster, then Strunk & White and others was good, but I especially enjoyed the story of Webster's Third International Dictionary, released in 1961 to general hysteria, apparently. People were outraged that "ain't" and "finalize" were included as well as a host of other substandard words. Well, lah-di-da. Fun reading for people who like John McWhorter's and David Crystal's books.
Read
April 9, 2015Liked this one a lot! If you like to read grammar books (a la Eats, Shoots and Leaves) then you will find this intriguing. It's basically a history of grammar thought. I love that these things change, and that what comes around goes around. Also loved the personal history of Noah Webster. Here in my office sits my Webster's Unabridged on its own swivel stand, and I'm not too proud to say yes, I read dictionaries. So if that sounds like you, and you like history, check this out.
January 18, 2016
Takeaways - the more things change the more things stay the same - people have been bitching about "they" as a second-person singular pronoun since at least the 18th century. Who knew. Debate over dictionaries/grammar books being prescriptive vs. descriptive also nothing new. Title of this book somewhat deceptive as it continues into 20th-century dictionary debates, but still a bit of a fun read if the subject matter is of interest.
April 15, 2016
I was incredible fascinated by the book. I picked it up from the library thinking it would put me to sleep and never be finished.
I finished it and then started reading it aloud to my 12 and 11 year old. It has gone by much slower as we have had to clarify and define words and ideas through out the book.
I finished it and then started reading it aloud to my 12 and 11 year old. It has gone by much slower as we have had to clarify and define words and ideas through out the book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews