English Grammar (Scepticalscribe?)

[yaxomoxay]

@Scepticalscribe and others.
What is a good and not boring book on proper English grammar, both for the written form and the spoken word?

 

[JamesMike]

The St. Martin's Handbook is a good start.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Lynn Truss wrote a wonderfully acerbic book - which was very funny in parts - called "Eats Shoots and Leaves" which I recommend.

The title comes from a notice she saw once. When describing the diet of a panda, the sentence 'Eats Shoots And Leaves" makes total sense.

However, a - perhaps ambiguously inserted - comma which causes the sentence to now read "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" gives us something of a completely different order while subtly suggesting those creaking swinging doors in a saloon in the wild west where a laconic character with spurs, a holster - and a gun, naturally - and a wide brimmed hat, strolls out, eyes narrowed as he squints into the western sun...

 

[Clix Pix]

I loved that book -- really a delightful read!

 

[willmtaylor]

@Scepticalscribe and others.
What is a good and not boring book on proper English grammar, both for the written form and the spoken word?

Eats, Shoots & Leaves is good.

Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English is also informative and entertaining.

I also like English for the Natives: Discover the Grammar You Don't Know You Know. This is a book about the descriptive nature of modern grammar use (versus prescriptive grammar--a teacher's telling students what is right/wrong).

I've also read good things about The Elements of Eloquence: How Yo Turn the Perfect English Phrase, though I haven't actually read it myself.

 

[monokakata]

This isn't precisely an answer to the OP's question, but . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style

is an old standard. It was the assigned text for Freshmen English, 1960. Yeah, I'm that old.

 

[Micky Do]

@Scepticalscribe and others.
What is a good and not boring book on proper English grammar, both for the written form and the spoken word?

Practical English Usage by Michael Swan, published by Oxford University Press…...

It proved useful to me when I started teaching English as a second language, and still does so occasionally. As a native speaker there are many things I just take for granted, for which it provides enlightenment, without being too dogmatic.

Something I have learned over the years is to not get too bogged down in "proper grammar", or proper English for that matter. It is a mongrel language that has developed over the years, and is still doing so. Unlike many, if not most, other languages it does not really have a culture associated with it. Nowadays it is the first or second language of many different cultures and ethnic groups, all of whom have contributed to its development.

Beyond a few basics, there are numerous variations and forms. There are times when it is important to stay with a standard form, for more formal documents and the like, but be aware that there are variations, such as the difference between UK English and US English, for instance.

The Story of English; how the English language conquered the world (by Philip Gooden, published by Quercus), is an interesting read on how the language came to be, and is still developing.

 

[willmtaylor]

Practical English Usage by Michael Swan, published by Oxford University Press…...

It proved useful to me when I started teaching English as a second language, and still does so occasionally. As a native speaker there are many things I just take for granted, for which it provides enlightenment, without being too dogmatic.

Something I have learned over the years is to not get too bogged down in "proper grammar", or proper English for that matter. It is a mongrel language that has developed over the years, and is still doing so.

Beyond a few basics, there are numerous variations and forms. There are times when it is important to stay with a standard form, for more formal documents and the like, but be aware that there are variations, such as the difference between UK English and US English, for instance.

Yes, the gold standard, but not exactly enthralling. More like a quick reference or grammar encyclopedia.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Thank you guys for your suggestions! I will definitely check 'em out

 

[mobilehaathi]

I've found the The Chicago Manual of Style to be a great reference.

 

[willmtaylor]

I've found the The Chicago Manual of Style to be a great reference.

Agreed that Turabian is a good reference in a pinch, not unlike Swan's work, but not exactly what the OP was asking for.

 

[mobilehaathi]

Agreed that Turabian is a good reference in a pinch, not unlike Swan's work, but not exactly what the OP was asking for.

Sure, seemed relevant, anyway.

 

[rhett7660]

I've found the The Chicago Manual of Style to be a great reference.

I picked up the Gregg Reference Manual, based on an English class I took. The Chicago Manual was also mentioned, ala at the end of the class though... grrr.

 

[Micky Do]

Agreed that Turabian is a good reference in a pinch, not unlike Swan's work, but not exactly what the OP was asking for.

Why not let the OP be the arbiter of that?

 

[yaxomoxay]

Why not let the OP be the arbiter of that?

I reserved all of them through my public library, although I will get them at separate times.
For now I got Woe Is I that (*) is an interesting and quick book so far.
Next one will be Eats Shoots and Leaves.


(*) if I read the "rule" correctly, I have to use that instead of which because I can't drop the clause.

 

[mrex]

Off topic

Get something that shows all exeptions. That is the grammar you will need

/off topic

 

[Mousse]

I have always liked The Little, Brown Handbook. That's mainly a grammar reference, to improve writing I like The Element of Style. Of course the best way to improve your writing is by reading great works, A LOT of reading.

 

[Gregg2]

I picked up the Gregg Reference Manual, based on an English class I took.

Sounds like the best one so far!

 

[vrDrew]

Good grammar is important. The fundamental purpose of grammar is to ensure that the meaning the author intends to convey is successfully transmitted to the reader. (Hence the humor in "Eats, shoots, and leaves").

But perfect grammar is not necessarily the objective. The New York Times has a column specifically devoted to the niceties of grammar and usage, and not infrequent errors, in recent Times articles. For example:

Led Zeppelin did not steal the opening riff of its rock anthem “Stairway to Heaven,” a federal jury ruled here, giving the band a victory in a copyright case in which millions of dollars were at stake.

Can you spot the error in that? For the purists:

O.K., this may be a fine point. But since what was at stake was the total amount, rather than the individual dollars or even the individual millions, I would make it “was at stake.”

You could spend an awful lot of time on a quest for perfection, without really adding much to either your understanding of the issue at hand, or your effectiveness as a communicator.

Yes: Strive to keep to the basic rules of English grammar. Agreements in case, between subject and verb. Pay some attention to the hazards of homophones ("their"; "they're"; "there"). I cannot tell you how many times calling someone a "looser" has caused private guffaws among readers.

But don't obsess over it.

Personally, I think a short volume on the general principles of short essay writing, such as the classic The Lively Art of Writing; with its emphasis on the structure and composition of effective and enjoyable writing may be a good investment of the student's time.

 

[jerwin]

@Scepticalscribe and others.
What is a good and not boring book on proper English grammar, both for the written form and the spoken word?

The Transitive Vampire: A Handbook of Grammar for the Innocent, the Eager, and the Doomed isn't boring.

 

[chown33]

I reserved all of them through my public library, although I will get them at separate times.
For now I got Woe Is I that (*) is an interesting and quick book so far.
Next one will be Eats Shoots and Leaves.


(*) if I read the "rule" correctly, I have to use that instead of which because I can't drop the clause.

In that construction I'd probably use which, along with a preceding comma. I don't think "is an interesting and quick book so far" is a restrictive clause. Therefore, it should use which. However, I could be wrong, or it could just be one of those disputable things with cogent arguments on both sides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses#That_or_which_for_non-human_antecedents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictiveness

Restrictive modifiers are also called defining, identifying, essential, or necessary; non-restrictive ones are also called non-defining, non-identifying, descriptive, or unnecessary (though this last term can be misleading).​

It could also be written as two sentences:

For now I got Woe Is I. It's an interesting and quick book so far.

​

On the general question, are you a native English speaker or not?

 

[yaxomoxay]

In that construction I'd probably use which, along with a preceding comma. I don't think "is an interesting and quick book so far" is a restrictive clause. Therefore, it should use which. However, I could be wrong, or it could just be one of those disputable things with cogent arguments on both sides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses#That_or_which_for_non-human_antecedents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictiveness

Restrictive modifiers are also called defining, identifying, essential, or necessary; non-restrictive ones are also called non-defining, non-identifying, descriptive, or unnecessary (though this last term can be misleading).​

It could also be written as two sentences:

For now I got Woe Is I. It's an interesting and quick book so far.​

mmm re-reading the rule it seems that I've found one of those strange cases...

From Writer's digest ( http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that ):

The battle over whether to use which or that is one many people struggle to get right. It’s a popular grammar question and most folks want a quick rule of thumb so they can get it right.

Here it is:

If the sentence doesn’t need the clause that the word in question is connecting, use which. If it does, use that. (Pretty easy to remember, isn’t it?) Let me explain with a couple of examples.

Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.

These sentences are not the same. The first sentence tells us that you have just one office, and it’s located in Cincinnati. The clause which has two lunchrooms gives us additional information, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence. Remove the clause and the location of our one office would still be clear: Our office is located in Cincinnati.

The second sentence suggests that we have multiple offices, but the office with two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati. The phrase that has two lunchrooms is known as a restrictive clause because another part of the sentence (our office) depends on it. You can’t remove that clause without changing the meaning of the sentence.

Now according to your wiki link:

• Restrictive: We saw two puppies this morning: one that was born yesterday and one that was born last week. The one that (or which*) was born yesterday is tiny.
• Non-restrictive: We saw a puppy and a kitty this morning. The puppy, which was born yesterday, was tiny.

(*In formal American English, the use of which as a restrictive pronoun is often considered to be incorrect. See That or which.)

My original sentence is:

For now I got Woe Is I that (*) is an interesting and quick book so far.

Now, is the second part (bolded) necessary?
It is not necessary to tell you that I got the book, but it is necessary to convey the meaning I want to convey (that is, that specific book is interesting).
[doublepost=1470163615][/doublepost]

Good grammar is important. The fundamental purpose of grammar is to ensure that the meaning the author intends to convey is successfully transmitted to the reader. (Hence the humor in "Eats, shoots, and leaves").

But perfect grammar is not necessarily the objective. The New York Times has a column specifically devoted to the niceties of grammar and usage, and not infrequent errors, in recent Times articles. For example:



Can you spot the error in that? For the purists:



You could spend an awful lot of time on a quest for perfection, without really adding much to either your understanding of the issue at hand, or your effectiveness as a communicator.

Yes: Strive to keep to the basic rules of English grammar. Agreements in case, between subject and verb. Pay some attention to the hazards of homophones ("their"; "they're"; "there"). I cannot tell you how many times calling someone a "looser" has caused private guffaws among readers.

But don't obsess over it.

Personally, I think a short volume on the general principles of short essay writing, such as the classic The Lively Art of Writing; with its emphasis on the structure and composition of effective and enjoyable writing may be a good investment of the student's time.

Thank you for the suggestion. Another one in the list.
as for homophones... I am lucky. Being ESL it's pretty easy for me to spell words, and I (very) rarely confuse their/they're/there its/it's...
On the other hand who/whom, me/I catch me off guard quite often
[doublepost=1470163763][/doublepost]

On the general question, are you a native English speaker or not?

Nope, I learned English about 13 years ago, at 23. I had some rudimentary knowledge, but nothing more. Unfortunately I'll never get rid of my accent...

 

[chown33]

It is not necessary to tell you that I got the book, but it is necessary to convey the meaning I want to convey (that is, that specific book is interesting).

Yes, it's necessary for conveying the idea you want to express, but it's not necessary for qualifying which book you're referring to. All that's necessary to identify the book is its title.

To be more specific, "is an interesting and quick book so far" is a descriptive phrase. One way to tell this is so is that when I separated your original into two sentences, both sentences made sense, were unambiguous, and didn't change in meaning. If the phrase were restrictive, then the result wouldn't have made sense, or it would be ambiguous, or it would have changed meaning.

So I'm still of the opinion that your earlier sentence is using a non-restrictive phrase, specifically a descriptive phrase, so which is preferred over that.

Another way of expressing the original idea would be:

Woe Is I is an interesting and quick book so far.​

It's not necessary to say you got the book, because that can be inferred from the statement that you're reading it. You could also use "and":

For now I got Woe Is I, and it's an interesting and quick book so far.​

This uses "and" to connect the two sentences from above into a single sentence. The comma before the "and" could probably be omitted.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Yes, it's necessary for conveying the idea you want to express, but it's not necessary for qualifying which book you're referring to. All that's necessary to identify the book is its title.

Oh, here's the mistake I was making. Thanks!
[doublepost=1470166073][/doublepost]

Don't feel bad about that. "Who" and "Whom" continue to challenge people who've spoken English since infancy; and more than a few people who actually teach English at the University level.

I will note that, for all its popularity as a de facto universal language, English can be an extremely complicated and often baffling language. Even for the native speaker. English is one of very few languages where you can have crossword puzzles that depend on a person's understanding and knowledge of a word's multiple meanings. For instance a recent NYT Crossword clue: "Figure in a dark suit", and its correct answer: "Spade" depend on the solver knowing that one of the many meanings of the word "Suit" (in addition to a set of clothing; a verb meaning to agree with or be appropriate to; and a legal action) - is that of a subset of a deck of playing cards. And that "Spade" - in addition to referring to a digging tool can also refer to a type of playing card.

How non-native English speakers deal with this, I don't know. I can tell you that German and French crosswords are, by comparison, relatively tame affairs, more on the lines of trivia quizzes.

I applaud anyone who works to improve their English grammar.

I think that one of the good things of the English language is that it is very easy to learn its basic grammar.
If I tell you "Me thinks going restroom" you understand what I am trying to say. The basic vocabulary is also pretty easy to learn.
Now, writing in correct English is quite a challenge. There are so many exceptions that it makes grammar a real science. For example, plurals. Potatos is wrong, or "two fish" to describe 2 of the same species, while "two fishes" to describe 2 species, and so on. Or as we have discussed that/which, me/I, who/whom etc.
I also feel sorry for my kids, they have to memorize how to spell many words... I am lucky because in my head I pronounce words as I would write them in my native language (ok, I know it's weird...) so I can spell 96% of them correctly even the first time I hear them.
Pronunciation is the true problem for me. The freaking "th" sound is almost impossible for me while I talk. If I try saying "the, the, the" I can do it. If I put it into a sentence, I mess it up. The "r" is another issue, yet much less problematic.

 

[vrDrew]

On the other hand who/whom, me/I catch me off guard quite often

Don't feel bad about that. "Who" and "Whom" continue to challenge people who've spoken English since infancy; and more than a few people who actually teach English at the University level.

I will note that, for all its popularity as a de facto universal language, English can be an extremely complicated and often baffling language. Even for the native speaker. English is one of very few languages where you can have crossword puzzles that depend on a person's understanding and knowledge of a word's multiple meanings. For instance a recent NYT Crossword clue: "Figure in a dark suit", and its correct answer: "Spade" depend on the solver knowing that one of the many meanings of the word "Suit" (in addition to a set of clothing; a verb meaning to agree with or be appropriate to; and a legal action) - is that of a subset of a deck of playing cards. And that "Spade" - in addition to referring to a digging tool can also refer to a type of playing card.

How non-native English speakers deal with this, I don't know. I can tell you that German and French crosswords are, by comparison, relatively tame affairs, more on the lines of trivia quizzes.

On the other hand, English is a language that dispenses, almost entirely, with the baffling gendering of nouns that makes a German Mädchen (girl) neuter or a French wardrobe (garde-robe) feminine.

I applaud anyone who works to improve their English grammar.