What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #551
How English Became English: A Short History of a Global Language
The English Language is spoken by more than a billion people throughout the world. But where did English come from? And how has it evolved into the language used today?
In Do You Speak English? Simon Horobin investigates the evolution of the English language, examining how the language continues to adapt even today, as English continues to find new speakers and new uses. Engaging with contemporary concerns about correctness, Horobin considers whether such changes are improvements, or evidence of slipping standards. What is the future for the English Language? Will Standard English continue to hold sway, or are we witnessing its replacement by newly
emerging Englishes?
In Do You Speak English? Simon Horobin investigates the evolution of the English language, examining how the language continues to adapt even today, as English continues to find new speakers and new uses. Engaging with contemporary concerns about correctness, Horobin considers whether such changes are improvements, or evidence of slipping standards. What is the future for the English Language? Will Standard English continue to hold sway, or are we witnessing its replacement by newly
emerging Englishes?
187 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 1, 2016
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews
April 4, 2016
Review to come closer to publication date.
*********************************
April, 4th
I have to start by saying that English is not my first language. At the same time, 90% (if not more) of the books I've been reading since last year are in English. Also, I studied English in school (from the second grade up until college). What I'm trying to say is that English is a very dear language to me, and I sometimes prefer it to my native language when there are books involved. Especially books written by English speaking authors. I feel most of the true meaning is lost in the translation process.
Returning to Simon Horobin's book, this is a very nice, light look into English language history. It is extremely accessible even to non-English people.
If the SWANS test makes sense to me, the GAS one makes me smile because, as it is stated in the book also, the language is constantly changing (as all other languages of the world), so I think Shakespeare should be let to rest in peace.
We also learn some interesting information from How English Became English: A short history of a global language such as: adjectives referring to size precede colour adjectives; the addition of silent letters to different words as a reverence for Latinate spellings, such as b for debt or p for receipt etc.
Also, look at that pretty cover. I bet the physical edition is amazing.
Bottom line is I strongly recommend this short history no matter if English is your first language or not.
*I thank Simon Horobin, Oxford University Press, and Netgalley for this copy in exchange for an honest review.
*********************************
April, 4th
I have to start by saying that English is not my first language. At the same time, 90% (if not more) of the books I've been reading since last year are in English. Also, I studied English in school (from the second grade up until college). What I'm trying to say is that English is a very dear language to me, and I sometimes prefer it to my native language when there are books involved. Especially books written by English speaking authors. I feel most of the true meaning is lost in the translation process.
Returning to Simon Horobin's book, this is a very nice, light look into English language history. It is extremely accessible even to non-English people.
Rather more playfully, Mark Forsyth, author of the bestselling Etymologicon, proposes two methods of determining the acceptability of a contested usage. The first is to apply the SWANS test (Sounds Wrong to a Native Speaker) and the second the GAS test (God and Shakespeare): does the construction appear in the works of Shakespeare or in the Authorized Version of the Bible?
If the SWANS test makes sense to me, the GAS one makes me smile because, as it is stated in the book also, the language is constantly changing (as all other languages of the world), so I think Shakespeare should be let to rest in peace.
We also learn some interesting information from How English Became English: A short history of a global language such as: adjectives referring to size precede colour adjectives; the addition of silent letters to different words as a reverence for Latinate spellings, such as b for debt or p for receipt etc.
Also, look at that pretty cover. I bet the physical edition is amazing.
Bottom line is I strongly recommend this short history no matter if English is your first language or not.
*I thank Simon Horobin, Oxford University Press, and Netgalley for this copy in exchange for an honest review.
March 13, 2021
Strictly for rookies and not for anyone with the slightest background interest on the subject. It is a very short introduction, indeed, or rather a summary, or a table of contents for those wishing to dwell into the English language.
August 25, 2016
A very British-centric look at the English language. English outside the UK is looked at but as a separate subject rather integrated into the main part of the analysis.
This is a rather slim volume that tries to cover a huge amount of ground, so though I was disappointed that it glossed over so many of the historical details and only provided high level views of important events such as the Norman invasion, I suppose I can't really fault it for doing so. But the history it presents was so very basic as to just function as a refresher for me and I'm not sure it would have answered many questions if I'd been new to the subject.
Horobin spends a great deal of time discussing such things as who has the authority to create standards for English, but I think he missed the mark by being dismissive of online sources.
For instance, while discussing dictionaries, he mentions two online dictionaries - Wiktionary, and Urban Dictionary. He never mentions Wiktionary again, but legitimately dismisses Urban Dictionary as being biased. But what about Wiktionary? Wikipedia, for all the flack it gets for being inaccurate, has been shown in some studies to be as accurate (or more accurate) as Encyclopedia Britannica -- at least in the less controversial articles. I was looking forward to getting his take on the accuracy of Wiktionary. Yet it isn't there.
And another lost opportunity comes up when he's discussing relevance. Is O.E.D. still relevant in these days when its content is hidden behind a paywall when there's half a dozen reliable dictionaries freely available online? Surely ease of accessibility is a vital component to relevance in the digital age.
Another internet-related subject that was lacking was when he was discussing the question of whether English would continue to diverge into multiple separate and mutually incomprehensible languages. With the internet and the constant communication all over the world, wouldn't this foster a convergence of language rather than a divergence? Or at least a simplified version of English? But that's not a question he explores at all.
The internet has greatly changed a lot of aspects of society, but other than a few paragraphs here and there, much of this book could have been written twenty years ago - and that makes it seem a little out of date even though it's a recent publication.
Thank you to Netgalley and Oxford University Press for the free review copy.
This is a rather slim volume that tries to cover a huge amount of ground, so though I was disappointed that it glossed over so many of the historical details and only provided high level views of important events such as the Norman invasion, I suppose I can't really fault it for doing so. But the history it presents was so very basic as to just function as a refresher for me and I'm not sure it would have answered many questions if I'd been new to the subject.
Horobin spends a great deal of time discussing such things as who has the authority to create standards for English, but I think he missed the mark by being dismissive of online sources.
For instance, while discussing dictionaries, he mentions two online dictionaries - Wiktionary, and Urban Dictionary. He never mentions Wiktionary again, but legitimately dismisses Urban Dictionary as being biased. But what about Wiktionary? Wikipedia, for all the flack it gets for being inaccurate, has been shown in some studies to be as accurate (or more accurate) as Encyclopedia Britannica -- at least in the less controversial articles. I was looking forward to getting his take on the accuracy of Wiktionary. Yet it isn't there.
And another lost opportunity comes up when he's discussing relevance. Is O.E.D. still relevant in these days when its content is hidden behind a paywall when there's half a dozen reliable dictionaries freely available online? Surely ease of accessibility is a vital component to relevance in the digital age.
Another internet-related subject that was lacking was when he was discussing the question of whether English would continue to diverge into multiple separate and mutually incomprehensible languages. With the internet and the constant communication all over the world, wouldn't this foster a convergence of language rather than a divergence? Or at least a simplified version of English? But that's not a question he explores at all.
The internet has greatly changed a lot of aspects of society, but other than a few paragraphs here and there, much of this book could have been written twenty years ago - and that makes it seem a little out of date even though it's a recent publication.
Thank you to Netgalley and Oxford University Press for the free review copy.
June 1, 2016
This slight book and barely 200 pages is more of an extended essay. It covers the origins of English and its mix of languages such as French, Saxon and Norse. I was surprised how familiar I was with the history of the language and found the chapter on changes in contemporary English the most interesting.
Horobin classifies texting as a dialect, which I found thought provoking. Anyone who has tried to explain to a student that text speak is not acceptable in an essay may find that defining it as a dialect may persuade the recalcitrant that it has its place and that place is on the phone and not in essays, formal letters and the like. I also like the concept of the emoji as an universal language.
Language constantly evolves and I was very taken with the fact that the US navy traditionally sends all its telegrams in upper case. Then along came the texting generation for whom upper case means shouting and they complained that they were being shouted at. So now the US navy sends its telegrams in lower case.
Horobin has a chair at the University of Oxford and has a highly readable style. You will read this over a couple of cups of coffee and is ideal as an introduction to the subject. It is difficult to rate but assuming that the reader is new to the history of English I have given it 5*.
Horobin classifies texting as a dialect, which I found thought provoking. Anyone who has tried to explain to a student that text speak is not acceptable in an essay may find that defining it as a dialect may persuade the recalcitrant that it has its place and that place is on the phone and not in essays, formal letters and the like. I also like the concept of the emoji as an universal language.
Language constantly evolves and I was very taken with the fact that the US navy traditionally sends all its telegrams in upper case. Then along came the texting generation for whom upper case means shouting and they complained that they were being shouted at. So now the US navy sends its telegrams in lower case.
Horobin has a chair at the University of Oxford and has a highly readable style. You will read this over a couple of cups of coffee and is ideal as an introduction to the subject. It is difficult to rate but assuming that the reader is new to the history of English I have given it 5*.
February 1, 2019
A fine history of the English language and its many branches. Has a great overview of the absurdity of many persnickety grammar and usage rules; turns out many of those rules are based on Latin grammar, which should have no bearing on a Germanic language like English, and many other rules were just 18th century preferences of usage guide writers!. So split those infinitive and say "less" instead of "fewer" everyone!
June 12, 2020
English language originated from British monarchy from the 70s but nowadays, the American English dominates and defines the modern English all over the world. How the English evolves throughout its history.
The book really dig deep into the root of English and the essences of its history.
The book really dig deep into the root of English and the essences of its history.
July 3, 2020
One of the better Very Short Introductions I've read - gets hefty, but it does so always staying interesting. Covers a lot of ground - has a structure that I didn't entirely get, but I don't think there would be a better way I could think of.
August 13, 2024
This is a brief history, just what I was wanting. Very interesting tidbits about not only how English evolved even during Shakespeare's time (such that his own plays reflected new usages in his later plays), but about American and Australian strands, as well.
July 16, 2018
Really well written, with digestible language and imbedded humour, this introduction is a manageable read even for those not studying English Language. Would recommend.
November 4, 2020
Mildly interesting tidbits on the English language, but nothing stunning.
December 4, 2020
Excellent introduction to the English language: it’s history, dialects, prescriptivism vs descriptivism, correctness, world Englishes... 100% recommended
February 2, 2021
How can so much information exist in such a short book? I really enjoyed reading it and recommend it to anyone interested in how languages - especially English, of course - work.
October 22, 2023
probably would blow the mind of someone who didn't know what prescriptivism is.
November 18, 2020
Horobin presents a fine overview of the English language - its history and evolution, and right up to the present tensions between language and social concerns. I found the book both easy to read and informative, but I've read several books on English grammar and style. Thus when Horobin breezes over a complex topic such as the plain language movement, I might have some idea what he's talking about. (For much more about that particular topic, see the Oxford Guide to Plain English.) For someone with less background in language the book will be harder going, but the same is true for every book in the Very Short Introductions series.
As the blurb indicates, Horobin "Reflects on the future of the English language" but with a massive, perhaps inexcusable gap: he makes no mention of the potential impacts of Artificial Intelligence along with artificially augmented human intelligence. Both humans and computers may be on the brink of becoming massively more intelligent, and this may transform the way humans learn and use languages and thus how languages evolve.
Until now, computers have acted mainly as "dumb" conduits for language, like merely more powerful typewriters. Thus as Horobin points out with respect to texting, computers have tended to "degrade" our language use.
However, computers are already starting to listen, talk, read, and write in rudimentary ways. Thanks to the ongoing exponential progress of Moore's law, we can reasonably expect computers to become steadily more fluent. Athough predicting the future is difficult, we can imagine a possible scenario in which computers force English to become more like Latin. How? Well, as Horobin points out, once Latin stopped being a vernacular language, and became a scholarly language, it stopped evolving. That's because, as Horobin doesn't quite fully explain, scholars are not quite like ordinary speakers of a language. The key difference being that scholars make vastly fewer errors, and are more inclined to think conciously about grammar - they use language with an awareness of language and its rules. Once computers become fluent, they will become as competent with language as the most linguistically competent humans. This could have the effect of augmenting the language ability of less-able humans. Imagine if every human were constantly accompanied by a team of world-class linguists, writers, journalists, grammarians, and editors to polish his or her prose - someday Artificial Intelligence could put all that expertise in everyone's hands. And not just a static representation of it, as with a copy of Fowler's, but the same kind of expertise that human experts bring to the table. Once computers are fixing everybody's language errors, error could be largely removed as a driving force for language evolution.
Humans themselves may become smarter. Richard Haier predicts this in The Neuroscience of Intelligence. And that brings us to another yawning deficiency of this book, which may be a deficiency of the field of linguistics in general: a seeming obliviousness to differential psychology (the psychology of human differences) and its consequences. Perhaps as a result of the political correctness that afflicts university humanities departments generally, linguists seem reluctant to admit that some individual humans are objectively better at some things than other humans are.
In part this may result from the fact that almost every human is able to learn to speak a native language in early childhood, without being taught. (This is in sharp contrast to writing, which most children cannot learn on their own.) Thus to a linguist, there is no natural privileging of one person's speech over another's. But at the same time that humanities departments strive for inclusivity to the point of self-abasement, they cannot help but recognize that some people are in some sense better with words than others. The writing of Shakespeare, for example, is not merely different than the average person's speech, but better, in a way that can only be described as genius. Although no one can yet (as far as I know) exactly explain what that difference is, and quantify it, maybe someday someone will explain it, and discover how to confer it to everyone. For example, there is probably a genomic score for language ability, as there are genomic scores for virtually every other ability or personality trait that scientists have investigated with GWAS. What will become of English if science someday gives the average person that same facility with language that the best writers have? Until now, English like all other natural languages has evolved according to the natural distribution of human abilities. But that distribution might be on the brink of massive improvement.
Perhaps the field of linguistics is long overdue for a differential linguistics offshoot - the study of individual differences in language use and competence, and correlations between language use and other behaviors and outcomes. Of course clinicians have long studied and treated a variety of language use disorders, but these exist at the extremes of the distribution of linguistic competence. Everyone's language is disorderly to a degree, with some individuals having much less disorder than others. Differential psychologists study the relation between psychometric measures (such as IQ tests and personality tests) and behaviors and outcomes such as educational attainment, criminality, income, and mortality. (Verbal ability is, of course, a large part of what IQ tests test.) What is the impact, for example, of IQ on language use? Does the individual's use of language announce his or her level of intelligence to the world? And are people therefore justified, at least statistically, to react differently to different language styles?
Horobin describes how linguists try not to judge people based on their their use of language:
"Conventions of correct usage are drummed into us early in our lives, by parents and schoolteachers, and it is very difficult to shake these off in adulthood. Even professional linguists struggle to do so. Deborah Cameron, author of Verbal Hygiene, a study of linguistic prescriptivism, observes that as a professional linguist she has learned to overcome knee-jerk value judgements that are inappropriate in this field of study. But, despite this, she still finds herself sensitive to particular solecisms: ‘I can choose to suppress the irritation I feel when I see, for example, a sign that reads “Potatoe’s”; I cannot choose not to feel it.’"
But where do these knee-jerk value judgements really come from? Lots of things are "drummed into us" by our parents and schoolteachers, but not all of those lessons stick. In particular, we tend not to retain lessons that don't correspond to reality. A differential psychologist might find these linguistic value judgements are groundable in statistics. For example, if people in the bottom quartile of the IQ distribution speak and write on average in different ways than people in the top quartile, then people will learn to recognize that some behaviors and outcomes tend to go with particular ways of writing and speaking. The person who gets well into adulthood believing "Potatoe's" is correct is very likely not the brightest bulb on the tree. (As the strongest correlations in the social sciences are only in the 0.75 range, there will always be individual exceptions to any such generalization. Maybe some person who writes "Potatoe's" today will cure cancer tomorrow - but that is not the way you bet.)
From The Neuroscience of Intelligence:
"1.10 Four Kinds of Predictive Validity for Intelligence Tests
1.10.3. Everyday Life
The importance of general intelligence in everyday life often is not obvious but it is profound. As Professor Earl Hunt has pointed out, if you are a college-educated person, it is highly likely that most of your friends and acquaintances are as well. When is the last time you invited someone to your home for dinner that was not college-educated? Professor Hunt calls this cognitive segregation and it is powerful in fostering the erroneous belief that everyone has a similar capacity or potential for reasoning about daily problems and issues. Most people with high g cannot easily imagine what daily life is like for a person with low g.
[...]
Consider some statistics comparing low and high IQ groups (low = 75–90; high = 110–125) on relative risk of several life events. For example, the odds of being a high school dropout are 133 times more likely if you’re in the low group. People in the low group are 10 times more at risk for being a chronic welfare recipient. The risk is 7.5 times greater in the low group for incarceration, and 6.2 times more for living in poverty. Unemployment and even divorce are a bit more likely in the low group. IQ even predicts traffic accidents. In the high IQ group, the death rate from traffic accidents is about 51 per 10,000 drivers, but in the low IQ group, this almost triples to about 147. This may be telling us that people with lower IQ, on average, have a poorer ability to assess risk and may take more chances when driving or performing other activities (Gottfredson, 2002; 2003b)."
Thus when we see a sign that reads “Potatoe’s”, the irritation (anhedonia) we feel may be grounded in our past experience. We each have a lifetime of observing different behaviors and outcomes from different people. Perhaps we have found that a person exhibiting language incompetence is likely to impact us with other kinds of incompetence. That is, if someone who sells you food believes "Potatoe's" is right, what other incorrect beliefs, of perhaps more consequence, do they harbor? The spelling error that you can see may represent the tip of the cognitive deficiency iceberg. You have valid statistical reasons to feel anxious when you place your fate in the hands of a cognitively less capable (i.e. stupid) person. It should be the job of (differential) linguists to collect and publish those statistics, for the benefit of all.
As the blurb indicates, Horobin "Reflects on the future of the English language" but with a massive, perhaps inexcusable gap: he makes no mention of the potential impacts of Artificial Intelligence along with artificially augmented human intelligence. Both humans and computers may be on the brink of becoming massively more intelligent, and this may transform the way humans learn and use languages and thus how languages evolve.
Until now, computers have acted mainly as "dumb" conduits for language, like merely more powerful typewriters. Thus as Horobin points out with respect to texting, computers have tended to "degrade" our language use.
However, computers are already starting to listen, talk, read, and write in rudimentary ways. Thanks to the ongoing exponential progress of Moore's law, we can reasonably expect computers to become steadily more fluent. Athough predicting the future is difficult, we can imagine a possible scenario in which computers force English to become more like Latin. How? Well, as Horobin points out, once Latin stopped being a vernacular language, and became a scholarly language, it stopped evolving. That's because, as Horobin doesn't quite fully explain, scholars are not quite like ordinary speakers of a language. The key difference being that scholars make vastly fewer errors, and are more inclined to think conciously about grammar - they use language with an awareness of language and its rules. Once computers become fluent, they will become as competent with language as the most linguistically competent humans. This could have the effect of augmenting the language ability of less-able humans. Imagine if every human were constantly accompanied by a team of world-class linguists, writers, journalists, grammarians, and editors to polish his or her prose - someday Artificial Intelligence could put all that expertise in everyone's hands. And not just a static representation of it, as with a copy of Fowler's, but the same kind of expertise that human experts bring to the table. Once computers are fixing everybody's language errors, error could be largely removed as a driving force for language evolution.
Humans themselves may become smarter. Richard Haier predicts this in The Neuroscience of Intelligence. And that brings us to another yawning deficiency of this book, which may be a deficiency of the field of linguistics in general: a seeming obliviousness to differential psychology (the psychology of human differences) and its consequences. Perhaps as a result of the political correctness that afflicts university humanities departments generally, linguists seem reluctant to admit that some individual humans are objectively better at some things than other humans are.
In part this may result from the fact that almost every human is able to learn to speak a native language in early childhood, without being taught. (This is in sharp contrast to writing, which most children cannot learn on their own.) Thus to a linguist, there is no natural privileging of one person's speech over another's. But at the same time that humanities departments strive for inclusivity to the point of self-abasement, they cannot help but recognize that some people are in some sense better with words than others. The writing of Shakespeare, for example, is not merely different than the average person's speech, but better, in a way that can only be described as genius. Although no one can yet (as far as I know) exactly explain what that difference is, and quantify it, maybe someday someone will explain it, and discover how to confer it to everyone. For example, there is probably a genomic score for language ability, as there are genomic scores for virtually every other ability or personality trait that scientists have investigated with GWAS. What will become of English if science someday gives the average person that same facility with language that the best writers have? Until now, English like all other natural languages has evolved according to the natural distribution of human abilities. But that distribution might be on the brink of massive improvement.
Perhaps the field of linguistics is long overdue for a differential linguistics offshoot - the study of individual differences in language use and competence, and correlations between language use and other behaviors and outcomes. Of course clinicians have long studied and treated a variety of language use disorders, but these exist at the extremes of the distribution of linguistic competence. Everyone's language is disorderly to a degree, with some individuals having much less disorder than others. Differential psychologists study the relation between psychometric measures (such as IQ tests and personality tests) and behaviors and outcomes such as educational attainment, criminality, income, and mortality. (Verbal ability is, of course, a large part of what IQ tests test.) What is the impact, for example, of IQ on language use? Does the individual's use of language announce his or her level of intelligence to the world? And are people therefore justified, at least statistically, to react differently to different language styles?
Horobin describes how linguists try not to judge people based on their their use of language:
"Conventions of correct usage are drummed into us early in our lives, by parents and schoolteachers, and it is very difficult to shake these off in adulthood. Even professional linguists struggle to do so. Deborah Cameron, author of Verbal Hygiene, a study of linguistic prescriptivism, observes that as a professional linguist she has learned to overcome knee-jerk value judgements that are inappropriate in this field of study. But, despite this, she still finds herself sensitive to particular solecisms: ‘I can choose to suppress the irritation I feel when I see, for example, a sign that reads “Potatoe’s”; I cannot choose not to feel it.’"
But where do these knee-jerk value judgements really come from? Lots of things are "drummed into us" by our parents and schoolteachers, but not all of those lessons stick. In particular, we tend not to retain lessons that don't correspond to reality. A differential psychologist might find these linguistic value judgements are groundable in statistics. For example, if people in the bottom quartile of the IQ distribution speak and write on average in different ways than people in the top quartile, then people will learn to recognize that some behaviors and outcomes tend to go with particular ways of writing and speaking. The person who gets well into adulthood believing "Potatoe's" is correct is very likely not the brightest bulb on the tree. (As the strongest correlations in the social sciences are only in the 0.75 range, there will always be individual exceptions to any such generalization. Maybe some person who writes "Potatoe's" today will cure cancer tomorrow - but that is not the way you bet.)
From The Neuroscience of Intelligence:
"1.10 Four Kinds of Predictive Validity for Intelligence Tests
1.10.3. Everyday Life
The importance of general intelligence in everyday life often is not obvious but it is profound. As Professor Earl Hunt has pointed out, if you are a college-educated person, it is highly likely that most of your friends and acquaintances are as well. When is the last time you invited someone to your home for dinner that was not college-educated? Professor Hunt calls this cognitive segregation and it is powerful in fostering the erroneous belief that everyone has a similar capacity or potential for reasoning about daily problems and issues. Most people with high g cannot easily imagine what daily life is like for a person with low g.
[...]
Consider some statistics comparing low and high IQ groups (low = 75–90; high = 110–125) on relative risk of several life events. For example, the odds of being a high school dropout are 133 times more likely if you’re in the low group. People in the low group are 10 times more at risk for being a chronic welfare recipient. The risk is 7.5 times greater in the low group for incarceration, and 6.2 times more for living in poverty. Unemployment and even divorce are a bit more likely in the low group. IQ even predicts traffic accidents. In the high IQ group, the death rate from traffic accidents is about 51 per 10,000 drivers, but in the low IQ group, this almost triples to about 147. This may be telling us that people with lower IQ, on average, have a poorer ability to assess risk and may take more chances when driving or performing other activities (Gottfredson, 2002; 2003b)."
Thus when we see a sign that reads “Potatoe’s”, the irritation (anhedonia) we feel may be grounded in our past experience. We each have a lifetime of observing different behaviors and outcomes from different people. Perhaps we have found that a person exhibiting language incompetence is likely to impact us with other kinds of incompetence. That is, if someone who sells you food believes "Potatoe's" is right, what other incorrect beliefs, of perhaps more consequence, do they harbor? The spelling error that you can see may represent the tip of the cognitive deficiency iceberg. You have valid statistical reasons to feel anxious when you place your fate in the hands of a cognitively less capable (i.e. stupid) person. It should be the job of (differential) linguists to collect and publish those statistics, for the benefit of all.
March 13, 2024
A good short introduction not only to the history of the English language but also to pidgin and creole as well as other Global (or World) Englishes. A few more examples of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation might have been helpful, but then again this is just meant as an introductory short book, to whet your appetite for more.
July 9, 2023
Chapter 1: What is English?
Chapter 2: Origins
Chapter 3: Authorities
Chapter 4: Standards
Chapter 5: Varieties
Chapter 6: Global Englishes
Chapter 7: Why do we care?
Chapter 2: Origins
Chapter 3: Authorities
Chapter 4: Standards
Chapter 5: Varieties
Chapter 6: Global Englishes
Chapter 7: Why do we care?
March 16, 2019
Dość często korzystam z języka angielskiego, może nie do końca jestem "native speakerem" ale mogę nieskromnie stwierdzić, że jest to mój drugi język. Jeśli znajduję się w środowisku anglojęzycznym to mój mózg się przestawia i praktycznie myślę w tym języku. Dlatego że ten język jest mi tak bliski, w momencie kiedy natrafiłem na tą pozycję stwierdziłem, że muszę ją rzutem na taśmę przesłuchać.
W niniejszej książce autor opisuje dzieje języka angielskiego, jak ten język powstawał, ewoluował, ulegał wpływom, jaki jest stan języka angielskiego na dzień dzisiejszy no i jaka przyszłość może oczekiwać ten język. Bardzo fascynująca książka.
Ciekawostką jest że język angielski zaliczany jest do grupy języków germańskich, ale na przykład jeśli chodzi o słownictwo jest bliżej spokrewniony z romańskim językiem francuskim niż z jakimkolwiek innym językiem germańskim. Z pośród języków germańkich język holenderski i fryzyjski są najbliżej zbliżone do języka angielskiego, ale dlaczego więc język francuski tak blisko spokrewniony jest z językiem angielskim? Może jednak po kolei.
Język angielski, podobnie jak pozostałe języki germańskie, języki romańskie, języki słowiańskie należą do rodziny tak zwanych języków indo-europejskich. W Europie język fiński, estoński, węgierski oraz baskijski nie należą do tej rodziny. Także nawet nasz język polski wydaje się być bardziej spokrewniony z językiem angielskim, niż język naszych bratanków Węgrów. Ale powróćmy do genezy języka angielskiego.
Wyspy brytyjskie po opuszczeniu Rzymian około piątego wieku naszej ery zostały zasiedlone przez germańskie plemiona anlgo-saksońskie. Ów plemiona posługiwały się językiem proto-angielskim który dość szybko przerodził się w język staro-angielski. Język staroangielski pojawił się więc na wyspach brytyjskich w piątym wieku i rozwijał się do około 10 wieku. Ponieważ na wyspach brytyjskich już dość wcześnie bo już w siódmym wieku, wraz z pojawieniem się chrześcijaństwa pojawiła się łacina wraz z alfabetem łacińskim. Anglo-saksończycy używali pisma runicznego do zapisywania swojego języka, ale dość szybko zaczęli eksperymentowanie z zapisywanie języka w alfabecie łacińskim. Brakowało im kilka zgłosek i podczas tej transformacji pisma z run na alfabet łaciński zapożyczyli sobie kilka symboli runicznych. Stąd w staroangielskim alfabecie większość liter to litery łacińskie, ale też mamy kilka specyficznych znaków runicznych. Dzięki zachowanym dokumentom wiemy dzisiaj jak mógł brzmieć język staroangielski. Dla przeciętnego Brytyjczyka dzisiaj były to język praktycznie niezrozumiały.
W 1066 Wiliam Zdobywca zdobył Wyspy Brytyjskie, wraz z tą datą rozpoczął się okres tak zwanego Normandzkiego Podbicia Anglii. Wraz z Wiliamem w Anglii pojawił się język normandzki, który jest prekursorem dzisiejszego języka francuskiego. Po 1066 elita angielska łącznie z królem posługiwała się językiem normandzkim, oczywiście łacina dominowała w kościele. Ludność oczywiście dalej posługiwała się staroangielskim, ale zaczęło dochodzić do dość dynamicznej ewolucji mówionego języka staroangielskiego. Właśnie w tym okresie przeniknęło ponad 10 tysiecy słów z języka normandzkiego do języka angielskiego. Okres od 11 wieku do 15 wieku określany jest jako okres "środkowego języka angielskiego" tak zwanego "middle english".
W XX wieku pojawił się też tak zwany "problem z Wikingami". Wikingowie szczególnie na wybrzeżach często się osiedlali lub też po prostu regularnie dokonywali najazdów. Doszło nawet do tego, że przez jakiś czas Wikingowie zasiedli na tron angielski. Oczywiście miało to wpływ na rozwój języka angielskiego. Do dziś wiele miejscowości na wyspach brytyjskich zadzięczas swoją nazwę Wikingom. Wiele nazw własnych wywodzi się z języka Wikingów.
W XV wieku pojawił się tak zwany wczesny współczesny język angielski. W momencie kiedy już żył Szekspir język angielski na tyle się "zmodernizował" iż dziś spokojnie ze zrozumieniem można czytać Szekspira. Co prawda jest trochę archaizmów u Szekspira, ale język Szekspira można już uznać jako współczesny język angielski. Od czasu Szekspira język niewiele się zmienił. Starogermańskie litery zostały odrzucone. Przypadki, rodzajniki praktycznie całkowicie zostały zlikwidowane.
Jednak współcześnie patrząc na mapę świata szybko dostrzegamy iż mieszkańcy Wysp Brytyjskich to jedyny mniejszość jeśli chodzi o "native speakerów" języka angielskiego. Stany Zjednoczone definitywnie zamieszkuje dzisiaj największa grupa "native speakerów" języka angielskiego. Dziś mamy dość ciekawy fenomen iż język angielski rozwija się dalej w wielu krajach równocześnie. W przeciwieńśtwie do języka francuskiego, gdzie od kilkuset lat istnieje formalny proces ustalania zasad i słownictwa tego języka, język angielski nie jest w żaden formalny sposób regulowany. Pomimo wielu prób do dziś nie udało się ustalić zasad oraz sposobu regulowania zasad oraz słownictwa języka angielskiego. Ten stan rzeczy powoduje iż język angielski dziś rozwija się równolegle na swój sposób w kilku, czy nawet kilkudziesieciu miejscach na kuli ziemskiej. Język angielski w Australli, Nowej Zelandii, Kanadzie, Stanach Zjednoczonych, Singapurze, Wielkiej Brytanii z każdym mijającym dziesięcioleciem zaczynają się coraz bardziej różnić od siebie. Globalizacja w jakiś sposób powoduje iż angielski jest tak zwaną globalną "lingua franca", ale bliższa analiza wykazuje iż istnieją różnice w poszczególnych "językach angielskich" którymi ludzie mówią w anglojęzycznych krajach na całym globie.
Autor przybliża dość ciekawy przykład Singapuru. W Singapurze wykształcił się tak zwany "singlish". To już praktycznie osobny język, mieszanka języka kantońskiego, kilku dialektów chińskich no i języka angielskiego. Rządz singapurski nawet od kilku lat prowadzi kampanię przeciwko "singliszowi" ale przynosi to marne efekty.
Książka przybliżyła mi nie tylko historię języka angielskiego, ale również fenomen rozwoju języka, ewolucji języka. Naprawdę świetna pozycja. Podobało mi się przyrównanie języka angielskiego do tak zwanej "łaciny ludowej" z której wykształciły się dzisiejsze języki romańskie. Rozwój języka angielskiego na świecie wydaje się przebiegać w podobny sposób jak dwa tysiące czy 1500 lat temu miało to miejsce z łaciną ludową. Co prawda językowi angielskiemu na razie nie grozi to, że stanie się on językiem martwym jak łacina, ale kto wiem, może za kilkaset lat na świecie będziemy mieli kilkanaście, czy nawet kilkadziesiąt całkiem nowych języków które będą miały swoje korzenie w języku angielskim. Singlisz oraz fakt iż mieszkaniec wysp brytyjskich ma czasem problem ze zrozumieniem Amerykanina, i vice versa, potwierdza że tak będzie.
W niniejszej książce autor opisuje dzieje języka angielskiego, jak ten język powstawał, ewoluował, ulegał wpływom, jaki jest stan języka angielskiego na dzień dzisiejszy no i jaka przyszłość może oczekiwać ten język. Bardzo fascynująca książka.
Ciekawostką jest że język angielski zaliczany jest do grupy języków germańskich, ale na przykład jeśli chodzi o słownictwo jest bliżej spokrewniony z romańskim językiem francuskim niż z jakimkolwiek innym językiem germańskim. Z pośród języków germańkich język holenderski i fryzyjski są najbliżej zbliżone do języka angielskiego, ale dlaczego więc język francuski tak blisko spokrewniony jest z językiem angielskim? Może jednak po kolei.
Język angielski, podobnie jak pozostałe języki germańskie, języki romańskie, języki słowiańskie należą do rodziny tak zwanych języków indo-europejskich. W Europie język fiński, estoński, węgierski oraz baskijski nie należą do tej rodziny. Także nawet nasz język polski wydaje się być bardziej spokrewniony z językiem angielskim, niż język naszych bratanków Węgrów. Ale powróćmy do genezy języka angielskiego.
Wyspy brytyjskie po opuszczeniu Rzymian około piątego wieku naszej ery zostały zasiedlone przez germańskie plemiona anlgo-saksońskie. Ów plemiona posługiwały się językiem proto-angielskim który dość szybko przerodził się w język staro-angielski. Język staroangielski pojawił się więc na wyspach brytyjskich w piątym wieku i rozwijał się do około 10 wieku. Ponieważ na wyspach brytyjskich już dość wcześnie bo już w siódmym wieku, wraz z pojawieniem się chrześcijaństwa pojawiła się łacina wraz z alfabetem łacińskim. Anglo-saksończycy używali pisma runicznego do zapisywania swojego języka, ale dość szybko zaczęli eksperymentowanie z zapisywanie języka w alfabecie łacińskim. Brakowało im kilka zgłosek i podczas tej transformacji pisma z run na alfabet łaciński zapożyczyli sobie kilka symboli runicznych. Stąd w staroangielskim alfabecie większość liter to litery łacińskie, ale też mamy kilka specyficznych znaków runicznych. Dzięki zachowanym dokumentom wiemy dzisiaj jak mógł brzmieć język staroangielski. Dla przeciętnego Brytyjczyka dzisiaj były to język praktycznie niezrozumiały.
W 1066 Wiliam Zdobywca zdobył Wyspy Brytyjskie, wraz z tą datą rozpoczął się okres tak zwanego Normandzkiego Podbicia Anglii. Wraz z Wiliamem w Anglii pojawił się język normandzki, który jest prekursorem dzisiejszego języka francuskiego. Po 1066 elita angielska łącznie z królem posługiwała się językiem normandzkim, oczywiście łacina dominowała w kościele. Ludność oczywiście dalej posługiwała się staroangielskim, ale zaczęło dochodzić do dość dynamicznej ewolucji mówionego języka staroangielskiego. Właśnie w tym okresie przeniknęło ponad 10 tysiecy słów z języka normandzkiego do języka angielskiego. Okres od 11 wieku do 15 wieku określany jest jako okres "środkowego języka angielskiego" tak zwanego "middle english".
W XX wieku pojawił się też tak zwany "problem z Wikingami". Wikingowie szczególnie na wybrzeżach często się osiedlali lub też po prostu regularnie dokonywali najazdów. Doszło nawet do tego, że przez jakiś czas Wikingowie zasiedli na tron angielski. Oczywiście miało to wpływ na rozwój języka angielskiego. Do dziś wiele miejscowości na wyspach brytyjskich zadzięczas swoją nazwę Wikingom. Wiele nazw własnych wywodzi się z języka Wikingów.
W XV wieku pojawił się tak zwany wczesny współczesny język angielski. W momencie kiedy już żył Szekspir język angielski na tyle się "zmodernizował" iż dziś spokojnie ze zrozumieniem można czytać Szekspira. Co prawda jest trochę archaizmów u Szekspira, ale język Szekspira można już uznać jako współczesny język angielski. Od czasu Szekspira język niewiele się zmienił. Starogermańskie litery zostały odrzucone. Przypadki, rodzajniki praktycznie całkowicie zostały zlikwidowane.
Jednak współcześnie patrząc na mapę świata szybko dostrzegamy iż mieszkańcy Wysp Brytyjskich to jedyny mniejszość jeśli chodzi o "native speakerów" języka angielskiego. Stany Zjednoczone definitywnie zamieszkuje dzisiaj największa grupa "native speakerów" języka angielskiego. Dziś mamy dość ciekawy fenomen iż język angielski rozwija się dalej w wielu krajach równocześnie. W przeciwieńśtwie do języka francuskiego, gdzie od kilkuset lat istnieje formalny proces ustalania zasad i słownictwa tego języka, język angielski nie jest w żaden formalny sposób regulowany. Pomimo wielu prób do dziś nie udało się ustalić zasad oraz sposobu regulowania zasad oraz słownictwa języka angielskiego. Ten stan rzeczy powoduje iż język angielski dziś rozwija się równolegle na swój sposób w kilku, czy nawet kilkudziesieciu miejscach na kuli ziemskiej. Język angielski w Australli, Nowej Zelandii, Kanadzie, Stanach Zjednoczonych, Singapurze, Wielkiej Brytanii z każdym mijającym dziesięcioleciem zaczynają się coraz bardziej różnić od siebie. Globalizacja w jakiś sposób powoduje iż angielski jest tak zwaną globalną "lingua franca", ale bliższa analiza wykazuje iż istnieją różnice w poszczególnych "językach angielskich" którymi ludzie mówią w anglojęzycznych krajach na całym globie.
Autor przybliża dość ciekawy przykład Singapuru. W Singapurze wykształcił się tak zwany "singlish". To już praktycznie osobny język, mieszanka języka kantońskiego, kilku dialektów chińskich no i języka angielskiego. Rządz singapurski nawet od kilku lat prowadzi kampanię przeciwko "singliszowi" ale przynosi to marne efekty.
Książka przybliżyła mi nie tylko historię języka angielskiego, ale również fenomen rozwoju języka, ewolucji języka. Naprawdę świetna pozycja. Podobało mi się przyrównanie języka angielskiego do tak zwanej "łaciny ludowej" z której wykształciły się dzisiejsze języki romańskie. Rozwój języka angielskiego na świecie wydaje się przebiegać w podobny sposób jak dwa tysiące czy 1500 lat temu miało to miejsce z łaciną ludową. Co prawda językowi angielskiemu na razie nie grozi to, że stanie się on językiem martwym jak łacina, ale kto wiem, może za kilkaset lat na świecie będziemy mieli kilkanaście, czy nawet kilkadziesiąt całkiem nowych języków które będą miały swoje korzenie w języku angielskim. Singlisz oraz fakt iż mieszkaniec wysp brytyjskich ma czasem problem ze zrozumieniem Amerykanina, i vice versa, potwierdza że tak będzie.
December 20, 2018
How many “Englishes” are there, and are they trending toward mutual unitelligibility? Does it matter? After all, who owns English anyway? Horobin manages to raise many interesting questions in this short book, and it is worth reading for anyone who cares about language. He briefly covers the origins and history of English, then looks at its current state.
I was taught the difference between words like “less” and “fewer” and when to use each, and it still grates on me to hear “less” being used for countable objects. I was also taught never to use “hopefully” to mean “it is to be hoped.” Imagine my surprise when Horobin points out that the fine points of usage that were drilled into our heads were not handed down from the mists of Anglo-Saxon time, but from as late as the nineteenth center, and merely the opinions of fusty old grammarians. For each example of these “proper” English constructions Horobin was able to cite opposite examples in common use.
The book is written in a light, non-technical style, with frequent use of irony and humor. It will make you think about how the language got to where it is today, a healthy, vibrant mishmash of words taken from any and every other language with a useful word or concept that we could appropriate.
I was taught the difference between words like “less” and “fewer” and when to use each, and it still grates on me to hear “less” being used for countable objects. I was also taught never to use “hopefully” to mean “it is to be hoped.” Imagine my surprise when Horobin points out that the fine points of usage that were drilled into our heads were not handed down from the mists of Anglo-Saxon time, but from as late as the nineteenth center, and merely the opinions of fusty old grammarians. For each example of these “proper” English constructions Horobin was able to cite opposite examples in common use.
The book is written in a light, non-technical style, with frequent use of irony and humor. It will make you think about how the language got to where it is today, a healthy, vibrant mishmash of words taken from any and every other language with a useful word or concept that we could appropriate.
September 13, 2016
More like 3.5 stars
Quick little read, yet quite interesting. I've always found words and language fascinating. Maybe it was that 3 years of Latin -LOL!
This was an overview of how English has evolved over the centuries into the language it is today. Covered were its roots, various other language influences, variations and changes ongoing today especially with the social media influences. For such a small book it covered a lot. I found the writing very accessible. I knew some of the information but some was new to me.
I particularly liked how the author addressed the 2 main grammar viewpoints of prescriptive (seeing grammar as more fixed with certain inviolable rules) and descriptive (seeing how things work and how they change. I also liked how he touched on how class and race beliefs have impacted the ways people see English as "correct" or not. His section on dialects was quite interesting, including texting and electronic communication in that area made sense to me.For those learning English as a second language I think this would be clear most useful.
Quick little read, yet quite interesting. I've always found words and language fascinating. Maybe it was that 3 years of Latin -LOL!
This was an overview of how English has evolved over the centuries into the language it is today. Covered were its roots, various other language influences, variations and changes ongoing today especially with the social media influences. For such a small book it covered a lot. I found the writing very accessible. I knew some of the information but some was new to me.
I particularly liked how the author addressed the 2 main grammar viewpoints of prescriptive (seeing grammar as more fixed with certain inviolable rules) and descriptive (seeing how things work and how they change. I also liked how he touched on how class and race beliefs have impacted the ways people see English as "correct" or not. His section on dialects was quite interesting, including texting and electronic communication in that area made sense to me.For those learning English as a second language I think this would be clear most useful.
November 23, 2016
Super fascinating and well-written. Horobin does a really great job of being unbiased for the majority of the text, stating all the facts from all sides of the issue. It's also surprisingly in-depth for such a little book. Not only is there a history of the English language with specific examples, there's also a bunch on modern issues with English such as texting and Spanglish and what even counts as a language anyway? PLUS, he concludes it all with a why does it matter section. I applaud not only the book itself, but the structure as well.
Great for nerds like me who love words and languages and obscure facts. Also great for anyone concerned with modern social issues, because language is a big part of every "race" and culture, and Horobin does a great job of addressing it.
Great for nerds like me who love words and languages and obscure facts. Also great for anyone concerned with modern social issues, because language is a big part of every "race" and culture, and Horobin does a great job of addressing it.
July 14, 2020
As far as short introductions go, this is a competent piece. Although narrated well, many chapters struggle with the audio format, and definitely would be better suited in the written form. As an Oxford publication, it seems to be geared more towards Britains than the rest of the world. At times it’s grueling, and often feels uninspired, but has other chapters that are much better suited for an audio book, and more interesting. Still, it strikes a good balance and has challenging and informative discussions on how we think about language. Unfortunately, the negatives outweigh the positives, and I can’t recommend this book as a good starter to the endlessly fascinating world of the English language.
April 5, 2021
Three and a half stars. No fault of the author, more the fault of the reader for expecting more than what was delivered. This is a fascinating look at the creation, development, and further evolution of the English language. I would have far preferred something more in-depth. For a good 200-page overview of how we've seen English become what it is today, this is the definitive read.
Sincere thanks to the publisher for providing me with a free advance reading copy through NetGalley. This bore no influence on my review or rating.
Sincere thanks to the publisher for providing me with a free advance reading copy through NetGalley. This bore no influence on my review or rating.
February 10, 2020
I listened to the unabridged audiobook read by Shaun Grindell. The book is super dry and that is not his fault, but oof, the Māori pronunciation in the section on Australian and New Zealand variations of English was hard to listen to.
May 20, 2020
Not an easy reading for people who are not already familiar with the concepts described in the book, even though it is just a basic and short introduction to the English language. Interesting on the whole, a bit dispersive in the chapter dedicated to dictionaries.
April 11, 2025
In short: English is totally chaotic.
“TOTALLY”
“Total” — from the Latin word “tōtālis” which was incorporated into Middle English (circa 1100 after the Norman Conquest of England) via Old French.
“-ly” — however, the adverb suffix “-ly” was retained from the Old English suffix “-līc” (which meant “like”). I.e. “slowly” ==> “slow-like”.
“Totally” — this formerly was only used in legal or mathematical contexts, but in Modern English, we use it colloquially to mean “absolutely” or “completely”; who knows why…
“CHAOTIC”
“Chaos” — from the Ancient Greek word “χάος”, which was then adopted by Latin, which was then adopted into English (though perhaps via a French intermediary, it’s unclear).
“Ch” — we pronounce it as “Kaos” because Latin happens to use “ch” to translate the Greek “χ” and that practice just persists
“-ic” — from the Ancient Greek suffix “-ikos”, in Latin as “-icus,” then moved into Old French as “-ique,” and ultimately into English.
“TOTALLY CHAOTIC”
And that’s just French, Greek, and Latin… don’t even get me started on the German (“house”), Norse (“egg”), Dutch (“yatch”), Arabic (“alcohol”), Chinese (“ketchup”), Japanese (“tsunami”), etc. OR on dialects, pidgin English, the politics of ‘standard English’, and countless other things.
I do wonder if large language models mark the end of the sort of linguistic evolution outlined in this very short book, since they are trained on and reproduce (and then retrained on) the particular forms of the languages which exist today. Just another sad outcome of creating a single, unified, artificial mind.
“TOTALLY”
“Total” — from the Latin word “tōtālis” which was incorporated into Middle English (circa 1100 after the Norman Conquest of England) via Old French.
“-ly” — however, the adverb suffix “-ly” was retained from the Old English suffix “-līc” (which meant “like”). I.e. “slowly” ==> “slow-like”.
“Totally” — this formerly was only used in legal or mathematical contexts, but in Modern English, we use it colloquially to mean “absolutely” or “completely”; who knows why…
“CHAOTIC”
“Chaos” — from the Ancient Greek word “χάος”, which was then adopted by Latin, which was then adopted into English (though perhaps via a French intermediary, it’s unclear).
“Ch” — we pronounce it as “Kaos” because Latin happens to use “ch” to translate the Greek “χ” and that practice just persists
“-ic” — from the Ancient Greek suffix “-ikos”, in Latin as “-icus,” then moved into Old French as “-ique,” and ultimately into English.
“TOTALLY CHAOTIC”
And that’s just French, Greek, and Latin… don’t even get me started on the German (“house”), Norse (“egg”), Dutch (“yatch”), Arabic (“alcohol”), Chinese (“ketchup”), Japanese (“tsunami”), etc. OR on dialects, pidgin English, the politics of ‘standard English’, and countless other things.
I do wonder if large language models mark the end of the sort of linguistic evolution outlined in this very short book, since they are trained on and reproduce (and then retrained on) the particular forms of the languages which exist today. Just another sad outcome of creating a single, unified, artificial mind.
April 8, 2026
I enjoyed the book a lot. It is indeed a brief introduction to English history and the path which the language and its speakers have taken until the modern (and always transforming) format.
English is not my mother tongue and the book definitely contributed to my understanding and perception of it, even explaining some doubts that I always had about pronunciation — it is amazing how little knowledge of Old English and Old French influence on English can shed light on how some words should be pronounced.
More than being just a raw, cold book on philology, it stirs up the discussion on language as a weapon of binding and prejudice.
It is a short book — but the subtitle is “A short history of a global language”, so what?
English is not my mother tongue and the book definitely contributed to my understanding and perception of it, even explaining some doubts that I always had about pronunciation — it is amazing how little knowledge of Old English and Old French influence on English can shed light on how some words should be pronounced.
More than being just a raw, cold book on philology, it stirs up the discussion on language as a weapon of binding and prejudice.
It is a short book — but the subtitle is “A short history of a global language”, so what?
September 19, 2022
Clear and readable but so short it doesn't really lend itself to my needs that well. I really like the focus on the history of correctness as central to the history of English, and I appreciate how the book questions the border between languages and dialects (esp good when it asks if OE really should be considered the same language as English). Really interesting point about the tendency in English to have object forms of pronouns replace subject pronouns, and even suggests that 18th-century correctness may have stopped the "natural" replacement of I with me. Is that argument developed anywhere?
January 25, 2026
Fine enough. Can't say it really changed my perspective on anything but a good recap nonetheless. Will probably forget it within one calendar month but that's principally due to my lack of innate interest in things relating to ...grammar... and ... history... which is probably a pretty significant personal flaw as a humanities student working in Modern Languages and literature. But... nobody's perfect.
April 6, 2023
A great introduction. It sums up most of the debates surrounding the language, like descriptivism and prescriptivism and also English language's history. It's also a great way of picking up some elementary vocabulary common in linguistics and a few technical words particular to this field.
February 19, 2024
This wasn't an unpleasant read, but it was more about prescriptive vs. descriptive language than English in particular. I did enjoy the parts that were specifically about English and how it developed over the years.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews