What do you think?
Rate this book
A Dictionary of Modern American Usage
In every age, writers and editors need guidance through the thickets of English usage. Although some language issues are perennial ( infer vs. imply ), many others spring anew from the well of
* Is it all right to say alums instead of alumni or alumnae ? And should it be spelled alums or alumns ?
* Should I say empathic or empathetic ? Do you home in or hone in ? Is it a couple of dozen or a couple dozen ?
* What's the singular of paparazzi ? Is paparazzis an acceptable plural? What about graffiti --singular or plural? And what about kudos ?
* What's the correct pronunciation of concierge ? Or schism ? Or flaccid ?
This book will tell you. In 750 pages of crisp, precise, and often witty pronouncements on modern American English, Bryan Garner authoritatively answers these and thousands of other questions that bedevil those who care about the language. Garner draws on massive evidence to support his judgments,
citing more than 5,000 examples--good, bad, and ugly--from sources such as The New York Times , The Wall Street Journal , and Newsweek .
Here is a usage guide that, whether you're a language connoisseur or just a dabbler, you can savor in a leisurely way, a few paragraphs at a time. No one can browse through the book without sharing the author's spirited awareness of how words work and his relish for exposing the affectations
that bloat our language. Yet if you don't have the time for browsing, but simply want a quick answer to an editorial riddle, this book is your best bet.
DMAU can justifiably lay claim to being the most comprehensive treatment of how American English is used--and abused--as we enter the 21st century.
* Is it all right to say alums instead of alumni or alumnae ? And should it be spelled alums or alumns ?
* Should I say empathic or empathetic ? Do you home in or hone in ? Is it a couple of dozen or a couple dozen ?
* What's the singular of paparazzi ? Is paparazzis an acceptable plural? What about graffiti --singular or plural? And what about kudos ?
* What's the correct pronunciation of concierge ? Or schism ? Or flaccid ?
This book will tell you. In 750 pages of crisp, precise, and often witty pronouncements on modern American English, Bryan Garner authoritatively answers these and thousands of other questions that bedevil those who care about the language. Garner draws on massive evidence to support his judgments,
citing more than 5,000 examples--good, bad, and ugly--from sources such as The New York Times , The Wall Street Journal , and Newsweek .
Here is a usage guide that, whether you're a language connoisseur or just a dabbler, you can savor in a leisurely way, a few paragraphs at a time. No one can browse through the book without sharing the author's spirited awareness of how words work and his relish for exposing the affectations
that bloat our language. Yet if you don't have the time for browsing, but simply want a quick answer to an editorial riddle, this book is your best bet.
DMAU can justifiably lay claim to being the most comprehensive treatment of how American English is used--and abused--as we enter the 21st century.
752 pages, Hardcover
First published December 3, 1998
113 people are currently reading
2197 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews
January 12, 2010
I want to do dirty things to this book.
June 29, 2008
Thanks, Dan! Receiving this book justified my having dragged myself out last night, and made the long G-to-the-A trek home totally bearable, even the part at the end when I was walking home from the train and a group of guys yelled out that they wanted to gang rape me. Hah hah! I just chuckled to myself, knowing that if any of them came close I could brain them with my lethally massive new hardcover Garner's, and then point out some finer points of American usage while the ungrammatical would-be gang rapists were sprawled out on the sidewalk, concussed and bleeding....
This book has the most cogent explanation of the that/which distinction that I have ever seen in my life! Plus, I'd never heard of "remote relatives" until last night, and now I know just what those are (and no, I know my interest in usage is a little goofy, but I still am not your corny grandpa, and can easily resist that obvious pun). If I somehow manage to absorb and remember all the information in this highly readable guide, my usage should become so flawless that sociopaths on the street will instinctively sense my power, and will be so intimidated that they'll leave alone when I'm walking at night.
This book has the most cogent explanation of the that/which distinction that I have ever seen in my life! Plus, I'd never heard of "remote relatives" until last night, and now I know just what those are (and no, I know my interest in usage is a little goofy, but I still am not your corny grandpa, and can easily resist that obvious pun). If I somehow manage to absorb and remember all the information in this highly readable guide, my usage should become so flawless that sociopaths on the street will instinctively sense my power, and will be so intimidated that they'll leave alone when I'm walking at night.
October 22, 2020
my best friend Twitch gave me this at trivia 2010-12-26. i promptly brought it home and read, enthralled, until 0545 or so. my date was pissed off, but Mssr. Garner and I danced the night away. every true pedant ought acquire and become intimate with a copy. beyond that, i can't say much more beyond DFW's Harper's review (which anyone not damaged in a profound, Oliver Sacksish-way will enjoy).
as another reviewer below has already claimed, this will likely find place on my desk as the first non-math book worth keeping at ready hand.
as another reviewer below has already claimed, this will likely find place on my desk as the first non-math book worth keeping at ready hand.
July 6, 2007
The hell with Strunk and White. This is the only book you will ever need.
May 14, 2022
I've wanted a copy of this for many years, since hearing David Foster Wallace and author Bryan Garner chat about Wallace's terrific review/article
Tense Present: Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage
(a greatly expanded version of which appears in Wallace's book Consider the Lobster, which, cover to cover, I recommend highly.) I finally got my copy of Garner's a couple weeks ago and it's now part of my home's landscape: It's not going on a shelf. It never disappoints, although it can annoy in that I never can look up just one entry! On any page there are so many entries that merit at least a glance, and then of course once you glance you're reading…yeah. This is a reference book you can curl up with.
Garner's style is that of the very cool english teacher: he will darn well correct your usage, but he'll often do it in such an engaging way that you almost don't mind being corrected. And when he sticks it to your own pet peeves you may (as I often do) find yourself nodding—or even vocalizing—agreement.
Here's an excerpt of Garner's irregardless entry: "A semiliterate PORTMANTEAU WORD[over 200 small-capped terms like this have essay-length entries unto themselves] from irrespective and regardless, should have been stamped out long ago," — then Garner, as he does with most entries, cites several examples of misuse in major American periodicals, and he includes the author's name! — "Perhaps the most surprising instance of this barbarism occurs in a linguistics text, four times on a single page…Although this widely scorned NONWORD seems unlikely to spread much more than it already has, careful users of language must continually swat it when they encounter it." A semiliterate barbarism! CAN I GET AN AMEN!?
OTHER HELPFULNESS AND COOLNESS:
- Garner has supplied an index of the aforementioned small-capped essays. (As I mentioned, the the book is peppered with at least a couple hundred of these essays.)
- An exhaustive Glossary of Grammatical, Rhetorical and other Language-Related Terms. This alone was worth the price of the book. Here's Garner's primary definition of rhetoric itself: "1. The art of speaking suitably on any subject." See? Understated but firm, lightly stylish, pitch-perfect! (And what's also cool if you ever hear Garner speak—check out the aforementioned conversation with D. F. Wallace—his soft Texas accent and relatively mild manner complement perfectly his gently authoritative writing style.)
PERHAPS THE COOLEST THING OF ALL: THE LANGUAGE-CHANGE INDEX
If an entry concerns a usage error (as opposed to simple clarifications) the error is rated on a scale of one to five, which scale Garner calls a Language-Change Index—the key for which is included in the bottom margin of every odd-numbered page. On this scale, a one signifies a complete rejection by all writers, with five indicating that while it may have been an error at one time, it is now fully acceptable.
Two examples.
1. Using the word dearth, which means a mere scarcity of something, to denote an absence of that thing is rated one. It is a misuse of the word as defined and therefore to be avoided. While over on the facing page...
2. Using daylight-savings time instead of the technically correct daylight-saving time was considered erroneous recently enough to be included, but is rated five since the only writers today who object to its use are hardcore snoots. (Snoot denotes an arrogant person of course, but is pressed into duty here as the word with which many members of the so-called Grammar Police have begun referring to themselves, and is, in its own entry, defined rather nicely by Garner himself as "a well informed language-lover and a word-connoisseur.")
Garner's style is that of the very cool english teacher: he will darn well correct your usage, but he'll often do it in such an engaging way that you almost don't mind being corrected. And when he sticks it to your own pet peeves you may (as I often do) find yourself nodding—or even vocalizing—agreement.
Here's an excerpt of Garner's irregardless entry: "A semiliterate PORTMANTEAU WORD[over 200 small-capped terms like this have essay-length entries unto themselves] from irrespective and regardless, should have been stamped out long ago," — then Garner, as he does with most entries, cites several examples of misuse in major American periodicals, and he includes the author's name! — "Perhaps the most surprising instance of this barbarism occurs in a linguistics text, four times on a single page…Although this widely scorned NONWORD seems unlikely to spread much more than it already has, careful users of language must continually swat it when they encounter it." A semiliterate barbarism! CAN I GET AN AMEN!?
OTHER HELPFULNESS AND COOLNESS:
- Garner has supplied an index of the aforementioned small-capped essays. (As I mentioned, the the book is peppered with at least a couple hundred of these essays.)
- An exhaustive Glossary of Grammatical, Rhetorical and other Language-Related Terms. This alone was worth the price of the book. Here's Garner's primary definition of rhetoric itself: "1. The art of speaking suitably on any subject." See? Understated but firm, lightly stylish, pitch-perfect! (And what's also cool if you ever hear Garner speak—check out the aforementioned conversation with D. F. Wallace—his soft Texas accent and relatively mild manner complement perfectly his gently authoritative writing style.)
PERHAPS THE COOLEST THING OF ALL: THE LANGUAGE-CHANGE INDEX
If an entry concerns a usage error (as opposed to simple clarifications) the error is rated on a scale of one to five, which scale Garner calls a Language-Change Index—the key for which is included in the bottom margin of every odd-numbered page. On this scale, a one signifies a complete rejection by all writers, with five indicating that while it may have been an error at one time, it is now fully acceptable.
Two examples.
1. Using the word dearth, which means a mere scarcity of something, to denote an absence of that thing is rated one. It is a misuse of the word as defined and therefore to be avoided. While over on the facing page...
2. Using daylight-savings time instead of the technically correct daylight-saving time was considered erroneous recently enough to be included, but is rated five since the only writers today who object to its use are hardcore snoots. (Snoot denotes an arrogant person of course, but is pressed into duty here as the word with which many members of the so-called Grammar Police have begun referring to themselves, and is, in its own entry, defined rather nicely by Garner himself as "a well informed language-lover and a word-connoisseur.")
July 9, 2023
Did you know that there are at least ten types of verbless sentences? This fact, including examples, is from his essay on incomplete sentences. These usage essays, which are included in the alphabetical flow of the dictionary, are my favorite feature of this book. I prefer to find these essays randomly when looking up a word. A surprise reading treat.
July 9, 2007
I poke around in this massive volume, read Garner's brilliant little mini-essays about usage, and a warm, geeky feeling blooms in my chest. Just about the best book on language and its use I've come across. It's like a box of bon-bons if you like this sort of thing.
October 2, 2012
Update 9/25/12: so, I bought this book. Glad I did-- been flipping through it some more, and it's quite fascinating. Garner can be quite funny even if he is a snoot.
I have to admit though-- upon further reflection, I still don't get the distinction between "erstwhile" and "former". I re-read Garner's explanation, in which he opines that erstwhile is necessary because "former" and "one-time" aren't sufficient, and realized that he never actually explains when you'd use one vs the other! The single usage example given in his entry on the topic isn't very elucidatory.
I know, "elucidatory" is awkward... no doubt Garner has a sternly worded essay on the subject. Mea culpa.
---
I checked this out from the library but realizing now, I need to buy it.
A while back, I accused the New Yorker of using fancy words just for the sake of it. One of the examples I gave was "erstwhile"-- why wouldn't you use the simpler word "former" instead? Don't they mean the same thing? Garner's entry on this topic straightened me out, I get it now. Right on
I have to admit though-- upon further reflection, I still don't get the distinction between "erstwhile" and "former". I re-read Garner's explanation, in which he opines that erstwhile is necessary because "former" and "one-time" aren't sufficient, and realized that he never actually explains when you'd use one vs the other! The single usage example given in his entry on the topic isn't very elucidatory.
I know, "elucidatory" is awkward... no doubt Garner has a sternly worded essay on the subject. Mea culpa.
---
I checked this out from the library but realizing now, I need to buy it.
A while back, I accused the New Yorker of using fancy words just for the sake of it. One of the examples I gave was "erstwhile"-- why wouldn't you use the simpler word "former" instead? Don't they mean the same thing? Garner's entry on this topic straightened me out, I get it now. Right on
June 22, 2012
A bowl of cereal and one page from Garner's Modern American Usage is my favorite way to start the day. I haven't been reading this book in the morning so I'm taking it off my list of book currently reading.
July 29, 2019
Roll over Fowler; tell Partridge the news...
This is a brilliant book. It is as erudite and authoritative as a usage book should be, but without offensive cant or needless pedantry. It is scrupulously edited and handsomely presented by the Oxford University Press in their usual exemplary manner. While Bryan A.Garner concentrates on American English usage (that's where the market is) he is no stranger to "BrE" or any other kind of English. Just to give you a hint about what makes the man tick and why he is now considered the preeminent authority on "grammar, usage, and style" (as a blurb on the book's cover--for a change--rightly has it), consider these words from the Preface to the Second Edition:
"People have asked whether enough has really changed in English usage since 1998 to justify a new edition. The answer is that changing usage isn't really the primary basis for a new edition of a usage guide: it's really a question of having had five more years for research."
He isn't kidding. What Garner brings to this usage book that completely dwarfs* all previous efforts is a gargantuan research regimen. This is clear from the thousands of examples of usage presented, both good and bad, from all manner of publications: newspapers, small town and big city; novels, classic and contemporary; magazines and journals, literary and scientific, etc. Garner obviously has a passion for words and seems determined to let no genre or form of reading matter go unread or unscrutinized. I didn't find an example from one of my reviews, but (given the many faux pas that I have, alas, committed in nearly 800 reviews) I fully expect that dubious honor in the third edition!). Yes, Garner is onto the Web and indeed he frequently quotes statistics of use garnered (sorry!) from such sites as NEXIS and WESTLAW allowing him to say, for example, about "analytical" and "analytic" that "the long form is five times as common as the short."
This is an interesting development in usage books. As Garner notes in his introductory essay, "Making Peace in the Language Wars," there are two types of linguists, "prescribers" and "describers," or as it used to be said (more narrowly) there are "prescriptive grammarians" and "descriptive grammarians," and never the twain shall meet. The former in both cases, as Garner has it, "seek to guide" while the latter "seek to discover...how native speakers actually use their language."
Obviously, no one who writes a usage guide can be a strict describer. Indeed throughout the history of usage guidance most of the authors have been primarily prescribers: "this is the way the word should be used"; "this is improper" and even "this is an abomination!" Garner follows the tradition and even goes so far as to label, for example, the employment of "defunk" for "defunct" as a "ghastly blunder."
So he is clearly a prescriber (as he admits). But unlike most of his illustrious predecessors he is a describer as well. He lets us see how the language is actually used and he gracefully bows (on occasion) as much to the preponderance of usage as he does to venerable authority and his own good judgment. Thus we have a usage dictionary for the 21st century, alive, vital and moving carefully with the tide, but not swept away by it.
Needless to say I do have a few disagreements. I will present a couple for sport, fully realizing that he is the authority and I am merely a respectful, sometime critic.
For example, Garner writes a very nice little essay on sexist language entitled "SEXISM." However there is no comparable entry on "racism" or word entries for "African-American," "Afro-American," or "black." I think there should be, as some guidance in word choice here is sometimes sorely needed. I have the feeling that Garner is not so much dodging the subject as he is fully preparing himself for the next edition. There is an entry on "ageism" (so spelled indicates Garner although the similar word "aging" is without the "e"), but no discussion of various usage concerns.
Also, he writes (on page 418 in the essay entry "HYPERCORRECTION" under item "J."): "When a naturalized...foreignism appears, the surrounding words--with a few exceptions...--should be English. Thus, one refers to not (a common error among the would-be literati)." However, I would say that using the French "le" as part of the phrase is a useful emphasis, much as one, when speaking, might emphasize the word "the" by pronouncing it with a long "e."
These and perhaps other picayunes aside, let me say unequivically that this book is a treasure trove of knowledge about our language second to none that I have ever read and a singular please to read and peruse.
I should also mention the three splendid appendices: A 13-page "Select Glossary" on words about words ("gerund," "homograph," etc.); a very interesting "Lifeline of Books on Usage" beginning in 1762; and a "Select Bibliography" of dictionaries, usage books, grammars, and books on style.
*This use of "dwarf" as a transitive verb is not given in Garner's book, although there is an entry on the noun form. I checked Webster's Second International and my spelling (not the ugly "dwarves") agrees with theirs.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
This is a brilliant book. It is as erudite and authoritative as a usage book should be, but without offensive cant or needless pedantry. It is scrupulously edited and handsomely presented by the Oxford University Press in their usual exemplary manner. While Bryan A.Garner concentrates on American English usage (that's where the market is) he is no stranger to "BrE" or any other kind of English. Just to give you a hint about what makes the man tick and why he is now considered the preeminent authority on "grammar, usage, and style" (as a blurb on the book's cover--for a change--rightly has it), consider these words from the Preface to the Second Edition:
"People have asked whether enough has really changed in English usage since 1998 to justify a new edition. The answer is that changing usage isn't really the primary basis for a new edition of a usage guide: it's really a question of having had five more years for research."
He isn't kidding. What Garner brings to this usage book that completely dwarfs* all previous efforts is a gargantuan research regimen. This is clear from the thousands of examples of usage presented, both good and bad, from all manner of publications: newspapers, small town and big city; novels, classic and contemporary; magazines and journals, literary and scientific, etc. Garner obviously has a passion for words and seems determined to let no genre or form of reading matter go unread or unscrutinized. I didn't find an example from one of my reviews, but (given the many faux pas that I have, alas, committed in nearly 800 reviews) I fully expect that dubious honor in the third edition!). Yes, Garner is onto the Web and indeed he frequently quotes statistics of use garnered (sorry!) from such sites as NEXIS and WESTLAW allowing him to say, for example, about "analytical" and "analytic" that "the long form is five times as common as the short."
This is an interesting development in usage books. As Garner notes in his introductory essay, "Making Peace in the Language Wars," there are two types of linguists, "prescribers" and "describers," or as it used to be said (more narrowly) there are "prescriptive grammarians" and "descriptive grammarians," and never the twain shall meet. The former in both cases, as Garner has it, "seek to guide" while the latter "seek to discover...how native speakers actually use their language."
Obviously, no one who writes a usage guide can be a strict describer. Indeed throughout the history of usage guidance most of the authors have been primarily prescribers: "this is the way the word should be used"; "this is improper" and even "this is an abomination!" Garner follows the tradition and even goes so far as to label, for example, the employment of "defunk" for "defunct" as a "ghastly blunder."
So he is clearly a prescriber (as he admits). But unlike most of his illustrious predecessors he is a describer as well. He lets us see how the language is actually used and he gracefully bows (on occasion) as much to the preponderance of usage as he does to venerable authority and his own good judgment. Thus we have a usage dictionary for the 21st century, alive, vital and moving carefully with the tide, but not swept away by it.
Needless to say I do have a few disagreements. I will present a couple for sport, fully realizing that he is the authority and I am merely a respectful, sometime critic.
For example, Garner writes a very nice little essay on sexist language entitled "SEXISM." However there is no comparable entry on "racism" or word entries for "African-American," "Afro-American," or "black." I think there should be, as some guidance in word choice here is sometimes sorely needed. I have the feeling that Garner is not so much dodging the subject as he is fully preparing himself for the next edition. There is an entry on "ageism" (so spelled indicates Garner although the similar word "aging" is without the "e"), but no discussion of various usage concerns.
Also, he writes (on page 418 in the essay entry "HYPERCORRECTION" under item "J."): "When a naturalized...foreignism appears, the surrounding words--with a few exceptions...--should be English. Thus, one refers to not (a common error among the would-be literati)." However, I would say that using the French "le" as part of the phrase is a useful emphasis, much as one, when speaking, might emphasize the word "the" by pronouncing it with a long "e."
These and perhaps other picayunes aside, let me say unequivically that this book is a treasure trove of knowledge about our language second to none that I have ever read and a singular please to read and peruse.
I should also mention the three splendid appendices: A 13-page "Select Glossary" on words about words ("gerund," "homograph," etc.); a very interesting "Lifeline of Books on Usage" beginning in 1762; and a "Select Bibliography" of dictionaries, usage books, grammars, and books on style.
*This use of "dwarf" as a transitive verb is not given in Garner's book, although there is an entry on the noun form. I checked Webster's Second International and my spelling (not the ugly "dwarves") agrees with theirs.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
August 18, 2009
Of the myriad dictionaries, grammar books and usage guides out there, one stands out as the argument-ender: Garner’s.
Why is this book so special? Several reasons:
First, it’s comprehensive. Pretty much any question you can think of concerning usage is covered in the nearly 1,000 pages of this book, with detailed explanations, the usage’s history and examples from print. It doesn’t just tell what’s correct or acceptable, it tells you why.
Second, the man knows of which he speaks. His concise, thoughtful entries are based on copious research and meticulous attention. Plus, they are clearly expressed with a minimum of jargon.
Third, Garner is firmly in the middle of the strict prescriptivists and the strict descriptivists. What this means is that he’s not an old fusspot clinging to outdated rules of grammar; neither is he an anything-goes endorser of unclear or ambiguous expression. He knows when it’s hopeless to rail against usages formerly labeled “substandard,” and he knows when to preserve useful distinctions.
Fourth, while many reference guides for English are more British in their points of view, Garner specifically addresses American usage. He does note differences between U.S. and British English, as well as American regionalisms and dialect expressions.
(Full disclosure: I served on the panel of critical readers for the third edition of Garner's Modern American Usage.)
Why is this book so special? Several reasons:
First, it’s comprehensive. Pretty much any question you can think of concerning usage is covered in the nearly 1,000 pages of this book, with detailed explanations, the usage’s history and examples from print. It doesn’t just tell what’s correct or acceptable, it tells you why.
Second, the man knows of which he speaks. His concise, thoughtful entries are based on copious research and meticulous attention. Plus, they are clearly expressed with a minimum of jargon.
Third, Garner is firmly in the middle of the strict prescriptivists and the strict descriptivists. What this means is that he’s not an old fusspot clinging to outdated rules of grammar; neither is he an anything-goes endorser of unclear or ambiguous expression. He knows when it’s hopeless to rail against usages formerly labeled “substandard,” and he knows when to preserve useful distinctions.
Fourth, while many reference guides for English are more British in their points of view, Garner specifically addresses American usage. He does note differences between U.S. and British English, as well as American regionalisms and dialect expressions.
(Full disclosure: I served on the panel of critical readers for the third edition of Garner's Modern American Usage.)
February 14, 2010
There are a minimum of two works you must have on your reference shelf: (1) dictionary; (2) usage guide. After that, you can make whatever choices you wish. There's a worthy old saying: "usage is king." And usage is anything but static. That's why a book like this is such a treasure. It provides detailed, thoroughly researched discussions of many of the most controversial issues in usage today. If you are serious about the correct use of English, get this book.
Want to read
August 18, 2009If David Foster Wallace can write a sixty-odd-page essay extolling this book's virtues (the central theme of which, proclaimed in all-caps, is WHY BRIAN A. GARNER IS A GENIUS), you're goddamn right I'm going to read it.
zhelf
July 29, 2017Yes I'm reading a usage dictionary cover to cover, a to z. That's what I do. But I might cheat with "which" because I want to know what he thinks of its mutation into a conjunction. Instant-gratification prescriptivists forEVAR.
January 2, 2015
Well, I don't know that I would say I read Garner's, exactly.
The forward, about the grammar wars, is a terrific read. Otherwise, I rely heavily on Garner's when I have usage questions, just as any right-thinking person would.
The forward, about the grammar wars, is a terrific read. Otherwise, I rely heavily on Garner's when I have usage questions, just as any right-thinking person would.
July 11, 2016
We just added Garner's to our editorial library at work, and I'm thoroughly enjoying the irreverent tone of voice, as well as the Language Change Index he employs to mark the ubiquity of questionable usage. I highly recommend this guide for both professional and amateur word nerds.
January 13, 2016
I love this book, but I'm never going to read it cover to cover. Lord.
Read
April 27, 2013Quite simply the most current and comprehensive book of rhetoric. This indispensable tome is as entertaining as it is educational.
February 20, 2015
This is a great reference. It's always easily within reach!
August 16, 2016
I read this book to my 9 month old daughter.
September 21, 2018
Nobody really reads this but I can't believe nobody ever told me it existed until law school. An essential reference for the question "am I using this word correctly?"
July 31, 2020
I heard about this book from an essay by David Foster Wallace called Authority and American Usage. Wallace had great things to say about Garner and his massive effort at compiling this usage guide. And yes, it is a usage guide, not a dictionary--despite my friends' insistence on it being a dictionary.
There are two types of entries in this book: word entries and essay entries. The word entries are short and interesting, containing information on use, misuse, pronunciation, and meaning. The essay entries are longer pieces of writing, anywhere from a paragraph to several pages, dealing with English usage topics like punctuation, redundancy, syntax, and more.
David Foster Wallace recognized how important and innovative this book was when it was published, and I'm glad that he recommended it so highly. My understanding of English--its current state and careful use-- is much better for having gone through this work. Reading Garner has helped develop my intuition of proper English, which is important for those who care about their use of language.
There are two types of entries in this book: word entries and essay entries. The word entries are short and interesting, containing information on use, misuse, pronunciation, and meaning. The essay entries are longer pieces of writing, anywhere from a paragraph to several pages, dealing with English usage topics like punctuation, redundancy, syntax, and more.
David Foster Wallace recognized how important and innovative this book was when it was published, and I'm glad that he recommended it so highly. My understanding of English--its current state and careful use-- is much better for having gone through this work. Reading Garner has helped develop my intuition of proper English, which is important for those who care about their use of language.
August 19, 2023
An excellent usage guide. Pretty big, though sadly I've found plenty of gaps - but that's inevitable. I like Garner's (fairly) balanced approach, as between descriptive and prescriptive, which he materialises for instance in a 5-stage 'language change index' indicating the extent to which a given form has become respectable or at least established; the application of the index is based on frequency of occurrence in large corpora of recent English.
Meanwhile his entries are clearly written, and the book is larded with a number of well-written and fascinating essay-length pieces.
Not by any means free of personal prejudice, but again, no such book could be, or at least not without succumbing to insipidity.
Recommended to anyone interested in English usage.
Meanwhile his entries are clearly written, and the book is larded with a number of well-written and fascinating essay-length pieces.
Not by any means free of personal prejudice, but again, no such book could be, or at least not without succumbing to insipidity.
Recommended to anyone interested in English usage.
January 2, 2020
When you open this helpful book, you're greeted by 100 common editorial comments for editors, writers and publishers on a single page. Chicago Manual of Style, take note on ease of use. From cliches to the em dash to quotation marks, you can quickly find the answer by page number. The author encourages editors to simply mark the text they are editing with a key in this book. Handy for editors and authors, teachers and students who use this book. Many entries have examples in media, books and contemporary publications so you can see usage. (Book published in 1998 and fairly current.) Keep this useful, entertaining book handy.
December 18, 2018
I keep this book by my side every time I write an important document. It offers pragmatic, evidence-based advice on idiomatic writing. Additionally, it's more entertaining to read than a considerable amount of fiction works.
I'll probably be referring to Modern American Usage for the rest of my life.
I'll probably be referring to Modern American Usage for the rest of my life.
July 11, 2019
This is my go-to guide on all language questions. Could not live without it.
January 15, 2023
I am a Garnerphile. All lawyers should check him out. I haven't consulted this book so often of late, but it is one of those reference books I feel more confident having on my shelf.
July 20, 2025
Highly practical and easy to use; for example, it clearly explains, with examples, when to use 'different than' versus 'different from'. Fluid, flexible, lucid content.
February 4, 2024
The gold standard. Although I’ve read it, well, most of it, GMAU isn’t the kind of book you read from cover to cover. Nor is it the type you digest for a hot minute thinking you’ve arrived at the grammar party. This is Slow Food for linguistic nerds but full of pep- not stodgy and benighted moralizing from a high-horse. I bought this after reading Quack this Way which is an interview between Bryan Garner & David Foster Wallace. I first heard about DFWs admiration of BG in the essay Tense Present from the killer collection of essays, Consider the Lobster. I like to pick up GMAU and flip to a random page. Mountains of stalwart principles just waiting to help you get your shit together.
Read
March 24, 2012As a result of not finishing this book, I did not rate it. In particular, this review is not zero stars.
It is a folly for me to write a review of this volume, given the limited ability I have for the construction of prose, made even more limited by the fact that I have already returned this book to the library. I apologize to the individuals who attend to the nuanced use of English as found in this book, who care not only for choosing the appropriate words and constructions, but who are so in contact with the written word that they can see its trends and formations, moving pragmatically with the stream of the changing language to take only the most effective uses of its new formations. Please take mercy in your criticisms if not in the red ink you apply to these words.
Given that I am employed as a software developer, as much as a half of my writing is not in English but instead is in a programming language. When I do write, it is usually for quite instrumental purposes, the kinds of instructions, reports, and coordination that comes with the operations of a technical infrastructure. The better part of my reading also tends to come from technical non-fiction and architectural speculation, areas also where the construction of prose is not perhaps the first concern. I certainly enjoy essays and fiction, but I would say I'm only aware of prose at all when its style is so unusual as to be a technical wonder in its own right.
Of course, the only path by an individual such as myself comes to a volume such as this was from David Foster Wallace's review of the book (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave...), which cited this dictionary's opening as working demonstration of how one undertakes being an expert while maintaining a democratic spirit of pluralism. Although I (quite easily) maintain ignorance of the subtleties of the prescriptivism/descriptivism divide, I do think the sections about Garner exemplifying qualities of a good technocratic expert are fair. However, I remain unable to vouch for the expertise itself. Overall, I read the front material describing the process and ethics by which the dictionary was made, and then began reading the essay pieces, which describe particular subjects or constructions instead of the use of specific words (such as ANIMAL ADJECTIVES or COMPUTERESE). I particularly enjoyed CHRONOLOGY, but I confess I was not prepared to integrate the guidance those that I read offered, and so didn't proceed very far among them.
Overall, it does wonders for one's humility to turn to an expert at something one does everyday to find another level of skill behind it. I can only hope that in my writing that there is occasionally some morsel of insight achieved, likely mostly by accident. In this, my mom's microwave chocolate cake gives me hope. Although she's not a pastry chef by any means, it's still a favorite of mine. In writing it might yet be like Satchel Paige said: "Not everyone can be above average, but no man need be common." Even my lowly usage might find an audience to which it is appropriate.
It is a folly for me to write a review of this volume, given the limited ability I have for the construction of prose, made even more limited by the fact that I have already returned this book to the library. I apologize to the individuals who attend to the nuanced use of English as found in this book, who care not only for choosing the appropriate words and constructions, but who are so in contact with the written word that they can see its trends and formations, moving pragmatically with the stream of the changing language to take only the most effective uses of its new formations. Please take mercy in your criticisms if not in the red ink you apply to these words.
Given that I am employed as a software developer, as much as a half of my writing is not in English but instead is in a programming language. When I do write, it is usually for quite instrumental purposes, the kinds of instructions, reports, and coordination that comes with the operations of a technical infrastructure. The better part of my reading also tends to come from technical non-fiction and architectural speculation, areas also where the construction of prose is not perhaps the first concern. I certainly enjoy essays and fiction, but I would say I'm only aware of prose at all when its style is so unusual as to be a technical wonder in its own right.
Of course, the only path by an individual such as myself comes to a volume such as this was from David Foster Wallace's review of the book (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave...), which cited this dictionary's opening as working demonstration of how one undertakes being an expert while maintaining a democratic spirit of pluralism. Although I (quite easily) maintain ignorance of the subtleties of the prescriptivism/descriptivism divide, I do think the sections about Garner exemplifying qualities of a good technocratic expert are fair. However, I remain unable to vouch for the expertise itself. Overall, I read the front material describing the process and ethics by which the dictionary was made, and then began reading the essay pieces, which describe particular subjects or constructions instead of the use of specific words (such as ANIMAL ADJECTIVES or COMPUTERESE). I particularly enjoyed CHRONOLOGY, but I confess I was not prepared to integrate the guidance those that I read offered, and so didn't proceed very far among them.
Overall, it does wonders for one's humility to turn to an expert at something one does everyday to find another level of skill behind it. I can only hope that in my writing that there is occasionally some morsel of insight achieved, likely mostly by accident. In this, my mom's microwave chocolate cake gives me hope. Although she's not a pastry chef by any means, it's still a favorite of mine. In writing it might yet be like Satchel Paige said: "Not everyone can be above average, but no man need be common." Even my lowly usage might find an audience to which it is appropriate.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews