Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English

by James Cochrane

Between You and I is James Cochrane's bestselling guide to the falling standards of written and spoken English. It is the essential course in language detoxification - a valiant attempt to salvage some pearls of good usage from the linguistic dystopia of the modern world.

Many readers may be surprised to find that much of what they thought was "bad" English is in fact perfectly good, and what they have been led to think of as "good" English is sometimes ignorant, dishonest or plain stupid.

Genres: Nonfiction, Reference, Language, Writing, Linguistics, Words, Own

132 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2003

Reviews

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a list of common usage errors that do need addressing but that are also James Cochrane's biggest pet peeves. He comes off as anal-retentive and is sometimes insulting, but Cochrane does care about the integrity of English, and I respect that. I also found his blunt style amusing. I like the guy. The Elements of Style also addresses some of these errors, but many are unique to Between You and I. Those serious about writing and speaking intelligently should take time to read this thoroughly.

Must-read complementary reading:

The Accidents of Style: Good Advice on How Not to Write Badly

Dreyer's English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style

NOTE: This review is cross-posted on The Story Graph and LibraryThing.

[Manybooks · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, I do agree with those reviewers who point out that author James Cochrane presents not only a plethora of questionable (and often downright wrong, wrong, wrong) English language usage issues in his 2003 guidebook Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English and that much of this so-called "bad English" can and does easily and quickly become majorly annoyingly frustrating and also should really be easily enough remedied, and that therefore due to this, Cochrane's often quite bratty and arrogantly denigrating attitude in Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English towards those who for example keep using their as an adverb and there as a possessive adjective (and vice versa of course) or who constantly write or say who and whom wrongly is supposedly more than understandable and even justified (and I actually do from personal experience kind of commiserate with James Cochrane being annoyed at and frustrated with first language English speakers not knowing adequate grammar, syntax and punctuation rules, as indeed, this also often comes home to roost for me when I am teaching German grammar and have to realise that many of my students do not even know basic English grammar, or often any grammatical concepts, period).

But I totally do also find it problematic and even somewhat inappropriate for James Cochrane in Between You and I: A Little Book of bad English to be textually snarky and nasty towards those who use bad English, since yes, Cochrane should first and foremost be majorly faulting and saving his criticism for schools (and for the entire North American education system) concerning the increasing prevalence of English language usage mistakes, since teachers and entire school boards have (in my humble opinion) totally dropped the proverbial ball so to speak with regard to adequately teaching the English language to native English language speakers, with the result that especially grammar, syntax and vocabulary instruction often does not really ever happen at school and that errors of usage are left to proliferate and to even become common and standard English.

And furthermore (even if only very grudgingly), I do wish that James Cochrane would also accept that ALL languages are constantly changing, and that indeed some of the problematic usages he describes and rants against in Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English are actually in contemporary society not only more common but also considerably more accepted and tolerated (and even in highly educated circles) than older and more archaic language forms (and yes, even if these forms of English in fact are grammatically and syntacticly better and more correct). Therefore, while I do think that Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English has much to offer and to teach, James Cochrane's pedantic attitude and that language change seems something rather anathema to him, this does definitely bother me enough to consider Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English with less than three stars.

[Cheryl · Rating 3 out of 5]

So, this is worth reading because it's short, because it's newer than, say, Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words: A Writer's Guide to Getting It Right, and because the focus is on the sort of error the current batch of "half-educated" writers make. Those who want to sound more 'posh' make the title mistake because 'me' is seen as somehow uncouth, for example.

Do not bother with this if you are comfortable with your writing. Do not bother with this if you're looking for a thoroughly entertaining read, as it really is just a very short list, gracefully & wittily written by a frustrated old Scot. Do not bother with this as a guidebook, because there are not enough items to cover the majority of your questions, and many of those included are insufficiently illustrated with examples/ non-examples.

So, let's see what I marked for myself:

venal = corrupt; venial = forgivable

tandem = in a line, not jointly, not side-by-side

sacrilegious is *not* etymologically connected with religion and is therefore spelled 'ri'

ground rules = rules pertaining to the specific field, court, or ground; *not* basic rules

"We are jealous of what is our own. We envy what belongs to others."

Ah, so... recommended if you just can't get enough of this kind of book and have an extra hour to kill.

[Gerry · Rating 5 out of 5]

The leading question is, is this a great book? The reason I bought it, and it did not fall off of the back of a lorry, was because I thought it might be a great book.

The majority of words and phrases in the book are those which can be corrected with some thought but there are those which the author considers 'lost causes', the criteria for which is that they cannot now be used properly because they are in regular, and accepted, mis-use.

It is a panacea for readers who want to be aware of the use of correct English, a phenomena that the author points out is often sadly lacking in today's society.

Between you and I, dear readers, prior to reading the book I could have been accused of being guilty of such malpractices as portrayed in the book, but definitely not now for I have taken a quantum leap to always use correct English.

Anyway I am reticent to talk any more about it so I can retire now to my safe haven and as a last thought, I can, of course, be let go if my review is unacceptable.

Sorry, I couldn't resist trangressing many of the rules in this delightful, humorous and informative book in the above review!

Seriously though, 'Between You and I' begins well with an incisive introduction from John Humphries, who endears himself to me with his views about cliches and modern jargon, which he describes as 'all the mumbo-jumbo surrounding "delivering objectives" by "thinking outside the box" or "stretching the envelope" by "building on best practice". What does it all mean he asks ... all I can say to that is that in my professional life I told my people that if at any meetings they started talking jargon or using cliches they would be immediately asked to leave!

So the scene is well set for James Cochrane to identify mistakes people make and he wonders whether it might be that modern educational methods have more rather than less insecurity about the way we use our language. He then wonders if it is anxiety about some mistaken notion of correctness that leads people into using such absurdities as he identifies. He points out that many of the errors are not only ungrammatical English but are actually stupid English.

It is a book that one should keep on hand to browse every now and again to make sure that one is not falling into any of the traps that he identifies!

[Almachius · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is English that is not only bad, but stupid, and it should be mocked and jeered at until it disappears out of sheer embarrassment.

In a world where a head of governors can write, "This is Catholic education at it's best," with no apparent irony, and an assistant headteacher can write, "Please hand the petitions to Sean or I," and both on the same day - today, in fact - it is useful to be reminded that we all make mistakes in our written English, and this little book of bad English proves it. I've committed several of the errors listed and am grateful to James Cochrane for setting me straight. I am quite sure I have used the non existent phrase "free reign" several times, have confused "jealous" with "envious" on numerous occasions, and am probably going to be "bored of" things again, though one can't be bored "of" anything, and certainly not bored "with" this deliciously witty and enlightening book.

Entertaining it is, but serious too - and nothing says "Watch out: this is actually a matter of life and death" like the inclusion of a George Orwell essay. Yes, the book ends with Orwell's 1946 essay, "Politics and the English Language," and oh how much we need to heed its warning today. I know a number of teachers (high school humanities teachers!) who not only fail to see any moral problem with using AI to write their end of year reports, but who actually, genuinely, sincerely, pitiably need AI to write their end of year reports - need - not out of laziness nor simply workload but because they cannot in fact craft an original paragraph. Never mind that there is bad writing forming our minds: our problem now is that there is no writing at all, and no one minds.

[Schmacko · Rating 3 out of 5]

James Cochrane scares the hell out of me. In this small book, the 70-year-old fuddy-duddy Cochrane offers about a hundred language errors, all of which I commit every day, I'm sure.

It's a fun book, and often Cochrane finds very humorous ways of exemplifying errors. As an example: of the word "expatriate" Cochrane writes:

As a noun, the word denotes someone living outside his or her own country and is so spelled and not as expatriot, which, if it existed, would presumably mean "a former patriot."

However, Cochrane's little guide is also very pedantic ("pedantic" being the precise word I should use here; it means "ostentatious in one's learning or overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching." I looked it up!) Mr. Fancypants Author says he supports language change. However, any reader will find Cochran vehemently abhors any change that comes from the worlds of political correctness, common vernacular, news media, pop culture, or business.

Still, I'm passing this one on to David. After David is done recieving criticism for his own horrible English, I'll probably take it back and reexamine the excoriation of the grammatical sins I daily commit.

[Redvines · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love, love books like this. It is really just a collection of things you should know about the words that you use. Some of the entries are well-known mistakes, such as the title, "Between You and I." Some of them are things that I am fairly certain I'm a culprit of, such as spelling "guttural" with an e and "minuscule" with a second i (because I thought the word evolved from something to do with being mini, which it actually didn't). Also, James Cochrane is an old British gent, which is A+ because who would you like better to lecture you on your bumblings than someone who drinks tea in the afternoons?

Anyway, my only real problems (I was about to write "issues," but then I remembered that Mr. Cochrane says this is an ignorant use of the word "issue") with this book were that A. on one or two occasions Mr. Cochrane is way, way too smart for me, and I have to look up a word in the dictionary (tragedy), and B. I would have let him tell me about words for about a hundred more pages before I got bored.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cochrane has collected examples of improper English, including grammatical errors, pronunciation, and words easily confused with each other, and attempts to educate the reader as to the correct usage. Cochrane is British, and as such, all of his examples originated in that country's publications. I assume that they remain applicable to American English, but I am not sure.
The book is not pleasant to read straight through, as I soon found out, but taken in short segments, such as on break at work, it is more palatable.
Some of these common errors were well known to me, but I was horrified to learn how many I'd been going about using improperly for some time. However, I'm not sure this was entirely positive, as I am now more of a grammar nazi than I already was!

[Mary Yuhas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tony says, "The reason being is that...". It drives me to drink. James Cochrane is on my side and that makes me feel superior. If you like to feel superior too and if you believe that people who say "more unique" should be denied the right to vote, you will like this book. Don't get me wrong- I got *schooled* by this guy. But it was worth it to learn the difference, once and for all, between discrete and discreet.

[mia · Rating 2 out of 5]

easy to reference but bratty. I would just rather use this: [http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/error...]

[Steve Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

Yet another “bitch list” book on grammar that is more heat than light. More heat in that Cochrane criticizes what he sees as some of the most irritating mistakes being made in spoken and written English. Less light in that he occasionally lists the error without fully addressing why it is wrong and how it can be corrected. It’s as if he sent the work off to the printer without finishing certain sections, or perhaps expected his readers to spot the error and give a knowing nod of the head, along with a gentle grimace.

(The printer ended up accidentally cutting out a portion of Cochran’s text on page 68, ending a paragraph mid-sentence. That defect may be why the book was on sale.)

When Cochrane explains proper usage, it isn’t always clear-except perhaps to the grammarian who doesn’t need the book. But that grammarian seems to be who the book was written for. Grammar Nazis will titter and tut and nod, perhaps saying to themselves, “Good Lord! People are doing THAT?” They no doubt clutch their pearls and tremble at the thought that the end of Western Civilization is nigh.

Of course, he isn’t as vicious or as condescending as John Simon, author of “Paradigms Lost”. Yet Cochrane can’t help but describe people who make these mistakes as “illiterate” and “uneducated”. He grudgingly lists several words and phrases as “lost causes“, resigning himself to their having become part of common usage. Note he wrote this in 2004, and some of the mistakes that he lists are not only used commonly today in 2025, but they were also used commonly in the 16th century!

One of his gripes is the pronunciation of the word “secretary”. He has an issue with people dropping a syllable and pronouncing it as “sektary”. English is spoken by 1.35 billion people in 88 countries. It is, at present, the lingua franca of the planet. Accents and dialects are going to shape the language no matter how loudly folks like Cochran or Simon scream. Where I live, I hear this pronunciation of the word “secretary“ quite often, and it isn’t a reflection of the person‘s intelligence or education. It’s simply how some folks talk.

I will be the first to admit when people make certain mistakes in writing I get impatient. “Your/you’re” and “there/they’re/their” mistakes are jarring to me. When folks routinely use “loose” for “lose”, I think I’m going to lose my mind and loose my temper on the writer. But we live in a world where some people have dyslexia, dysgraphia, and conduction aphasia. At the time of this writing, spellcheck and AutoCorrect are still imperfect, and voice-to-text’s shortcomings have yet to be resolved. Much of our communication is done by keying in words on a phone with our thumbs, and we tend to send messages on their way without noticing our mistakes because of our very tiny handheld screens. I myself can’t easily see mistakes on a large computer screen, and often print work on paper before editing it. After all that, I still run my work by my wife to ensure that I haven’t dangled a participle or precipitated a festering disagreement between a subject and a verb.

Given all that, I find it increasingly hard to judge.

Within ten years of me writing this, I predict that artificial intelligence will drastically reduce the demand for books such as this*. Most written correspondence will be grammatically perfect and in line with the standards of the day. Written grammar will only change when spoken English permanently evolves. Should that happen, the study of grammar, like Latin and Greek, cursive writing, or perhaps someday even composition itself, will be an elective pursuit and not the casus belli for some great crusade.**




*If A.I. doesn’t become one more tool we might use to assist us in terminating humanity.

**I don’t doubt somebody is going to point out my grammatical errors in this review. The question remains as to whether you understood me or not.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 2 out of 5]

Cochrane comes across some as a fuddy-duddy who puts forward, with attitude (rank display?), his collection of favored pet peeves. For him, English does not evolve. He wants his words fixed in meaning forever. New uses for old words are not allowed. He, for example, repeats what many others have argued: unique means one and only. There cannot be something that is “very” unique. But in a world of shades and gradations, pure categories are few and far between, and a reference to something being very unique makes perfect sense. It is something that is relatively rare. The meaning is clear enough without getting wrapped around the axle. It’s the same with “center around.” His point of course is that a center is a single point. There is nothing around it, though of course, more often than not, life centers around a particular point.

He does not like “safe haven” as haven is by definition safe. He doesn’t like a “moment in time” for the same reason. But in both cases, and with a few other of his references, he says nothing about meaningless words that add rhythm and cadence and sound, which are not meaningless. He doesn’t like “quantum leap” because it’s a “tiresome cliche” and because journalists mistakenly mean “a sudden and dramatic increase in scale or quantity.” Well, in the quantum world, I suppose that the jumps in states are small, relatively, but they are, nonetheless, sudden and “dramatic” changes in scale and describe well a good part of how the world works. Even with this nit-pickiness, Cochrane for some reason feels it ok to reference Bad English in a sentence, as if it’s ok to capitalize “Bad” in the middle of a sentence.

Cochrane is good to clarify that hair brane is not “hare-brain,” that straight jacket is not “strait-jacket,” and that tender hooks is not “tenterhooks.” His comments on “key”, “issue,” “mission statements” and “resources” is good. They offer the reader only “weariness” he says and I think that’s accurate - either because, in their overuse, they lose their emphatic value or because they are bureaucratic mambo-jumbo (mission statements) or manipulative euphemisms for money (“resources”). In this regard, his take on “community” was excellent - the word conveys untruths: “Now we have the ‘gay community’, the ‘Asian community’, the ‘financial community and even the Arts community’; phrases referring to large numbers of people widely dispersed geographically, mostly unknown to one another, and united only by such factors as sexual orientation, ethnicity, skill at making money out of money, or an interest in seeking subsidies from the taxpayer for cultural activities which would otherwise be unsustainable; in short, not communities in any real sense at all.”

[Angelica Perez · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Successful revolutions are achieved with words as much as with weapons.”

I have always loved English and grammar. I won the English award in 8th grade and had 13 extra credit points in my 7th grade English class for fixing people’s grammar. I am a bit of a grammar nazi (sorry to everyone). Like the author, incorrect grammar is a big pet peeve of mine, so I felt a bit less alone in that feeling while reading this book. This was a really fun book for me to read. I learned some new things about the English language and read some things I wish I could send directly to certain people.

Disclaimer: After reading the book Wordslut, I am trying to not correct people’s grammar and diction because I am aware that there are different dialects of English for different cultures and I would never do anything’ll to knowingly diminish someone’s culture.

[Alex Craigie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I did enjoy the concept of this book which explains things in a forthright manner. Common misconceptions are presented, debunked and put safely in place. I learned a good deal from it and shall keep it to refer to, but it's that 'forthright manner' that spoiled it for me. Cochrane's contempt for people who make these mistakes was often cruel and derogatory. Not everyone has the same fortunate start in life and to mock those who have missed out on a good education with his brand of vitriol comes across as the worst of arrogant privilege.

[Barbara · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kein Bastian Sick auf Englisch, viel besser: kurzweilig und lehrreich, eine kleine und feine Auswahl (darunter auch "lost cases", wie man Cochrane seufzen hören meint), dabei angenehm direkt im Urteil. Zum Beispiel hier:

throes of, in the
This is how the expression should be spelt. When seen in the form "in the throws of" it should be treated with ridicule and contempt.

[G Flood · Rating 5 out of 5]

Entertaining, as well as educational!

[Dawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

It irks me when people use incorrect grammar. This title amused me. It is very British, therefore, I have not noticed some of the phrases in American discussions. Quick read.

[Mark A.]

""

[Claudia Staude · Rating 2 out of 5]

More a reference book than anything else. Author is a bit pedantic at points- but he highlights a great deal of what we could do better in speaking and writing!

[Anam Cara · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fun little book (only 132 pages) of proper English. Some of is is about usage, some about spelling. Fun, but not something you'd read straight through.

[Saanvi · Rating 3 out of 5]

*3.5

[Kirsten · Rating 4 out of 5]

My emotions while reading this book bounced between smug and ashamed. Do people really not know the difference between infer and imply? [Smug.] But apparently, we don't fall off of things. Who knew? James Cochrane knew and I didn't. [Ashamed.] I was really struck by his premise that many of the mistakes he listed seem to be a result of people trying to sound smart. The gap between educated and uneducated, Cochrane maintains, is filled with those who think the correct usage does not sound fancy enough to be right, so they jazz it up with something ostensibly more regal sounding, but ultimately incorrect. (Remind me not to reread any writing from my freshman year of college in the near future.)

This little book is very funny...it might have been more so if I were British, I think, but I laughed several times. And always the author keeps a light hand, as if to say, "Yes, that's a really stupid mistake, but aren't you glad you read this book so you won't make it anymore?" Yes, I am.

[Melodee · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a quick read. It highlights various words and phrases in English that are either misused, misspelled or mistaken for other words. It is scholarly without being overly pedantic. Several of my personal linguistic pet peeves were included, so I found myself saying, "Yes, exactly!" The author doesn't belabor his points; he is brief and to-the-point. He also acknowledges the evolution of language. This is definitely worth reading if you are a lover of language and the "proper" usage of English words.

[David Allen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I considered adding a spoiler alert for those who don't want advance word on the difference between discreet and discrete ("tactful" and "individual," respectively). Cochrane is as mystified as me as to why people say "could of" for "could have." Not all the Brit's choices travel across the pond, but for a grammar book, it's fun.

[Peterwmedwards · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cochrane offers us a brief glossary of poor English, but one that may be read from beginning to end like a gripping novella. The explanations of commonly misused words and phrases are interesting in themselves, though it is Cochrane's biting snobbery that will bring you back for more.

Fine light reading for snobs and grammarians everywhere.

[elissa · Rating 3 out of 5]

so, in the light of loving damn near any pretentious English eccentric wanna-be, this book is great, hilarious at times and, dare i say, appropriate. i will be passing this one to several people, for a multitude of reasons...

[Caleb Liu · Rating 3 out of 5]

A personal A-Z compendium of the most egregious abuses of the English language by a longtime sub-editor at the BBC. An interesting read not only to find out the common mistakes that you might be guilty of but for Cochrane's acerbic put-downs at what he considers to be bad English.

[Hauntie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Admittedly, I read the AP Stylebook for fun, so this is along the same lines. I pick it up here and there when I have a minute and chuckle at the common mistakes common people make. And i even learned something but i will not admit what it was I didn't know. So don't ask.

[somer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I keep this book on my desk at work. Hilarious, humbling and informative.

[crystal · Rating 3 out of 5]

good little reference book that explains common grammatical errors.