Garner's Modern American Usage / Edition 3

Hardcover (Print)
Rent
Rent from BN.com
$10.89
(Save 76%)
Est. Return Date: 09/26/2014
Used and New from Other Sellers
Used and New from Other Sellers
from $21.06
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
(Save 53%)
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (13) from $21.06   
  • New (7) from $28.73   
  • Used (6) from $21.06   

Overview


Since first appearing in 1998, Garner's Modern American Usage has established itself as the preeminent guide to the effective use of the English language. Brimming with witty, erudite essays on troublesome words and phrases, this book authoritatively shows how to avoid the countless pitfalls that await unwary writers and speakers whether the issues relate to grammar, punctuation, word choice, or pronunciation.

Now in the third edition, readers will find the "Garner's Language-Change Index," which registers where each disputed usage in modern English falls on a five-stage continuum from nonacceptability (to the language community as a whole) to acceptability, giving the book a consistent standard throughout. Garner's Modern American Usage, 3e is the first usage guide ever to incorporate such a language-change index, and the judgments are based both on Garner's own original research in linguistic corpora and on his analysis of hundreds of earlier studies. Another first in this edition is the panel of critical readers: 120-plus commentators who have helped Garner reassess and update the text, so that every page has been improved.

"This wonderfully written work aims to help people use language so they will use the right words to say what they mean. Garner relies on modern sources rather than historical precedent to determine the current, correct usage. He even advises writers about which words to avoid altogether. Each of the approximately 7,000 entries provides a definition, discusses the usage of the word, provides illustrative quotations, and gives citations to the references and quotations. This is an entertaining, witty, and unpretentious resource that will always come in handy in the public or academic library."----"Outstanding reference sources 2000", American Libraries, May 2000. Comp. by the Reference Sources Committee, RUSA, ALA.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

From Barnes & Noble
A classic in the making, this usage guide gives friendly, useful advice for anyone who needs to write. Garner, author of A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage and editor of Black's Law Dictionary -- the standard in its field, strikes a balance between overly strict and outdated grammar rules and the often sloppy and confusing writing that abounds today. A must for your home reference collection, Garner's guidelines let you write clear, educated prose.
From the Publisher

"Clearly one of the best works on the topic" --Booklist starred review

"Whether taking those first steps on the road to good writing--namely, the avoidance of bad writing--or tending to further details of clarity, style, and organization, the writer-editor, like any artisan, needs guidance from a master. Such guidance is just what Garner's Modern American Usage provides, and lots of it." --Five Towns Jewish Times

"Garner makes grammar fun, and readers will not only find elucidation but also moments of pure delight while browsing these pages. As always, the entries are not only filled with clear lessons about language usage, trends, and problems inherent in misuse, but they are also peppered with cleverly chosen examples of both usage and misusage. [Garner's] book is the best of its kind in that it simply reports the facts in an engaging way; language evolves and usage changes. An invaluable ready-reference tool." School Library Journal

"Garner's book is by far the best on contemporary usage. For language lovers or for those attempting to find out how words are being used today, Garner's Modern American Usage is an indispensable tool." --Technical Communication

School Library Journal
Gr 9 Up—Garner makes grammar fun, and readers will not only find elucidation but also moments of pure delight while browsing these pages. This edition includes more than 10,500 entries (an increase of approximately 1500 over the 2003 volume). There are preface statements from all three editions as well as new, worthwhile introductory essays: "Making Peace in the Language Wars" and "Ongoing Struggles of Garlic-Hangers" (a consideration of the descriptive vs. proscriptive debate). As always, the entries are not only filled with clear lessons about language usage, trends, and problems inherent in misuse, but they are also peppered with cleverly chosen examples of both usage and misusage. Entries run anywhere from a line or two about spelling ("espresso" not "expresso") to a full column (see "effete") or more (see "irregular verbs" and the table following). Added to this edition is a language-change index that rates where a disputed usage falls on a scale of 1-5 (with 1 being "widely rejected" and 5 being "universally accepted") so that readers can gauge the correctness of a phrase such as "Hopefully, it won't rain tomorrow." Garner isn't a snob, though. His book is the best of its kind in that it simply reports the facts in an engaging way; language evolves and usage changes. The book ends with a 46-page glossary of grammatical, rhetorical, and other language-related terms, and a 10-page time line of books on usage. An invaluable ready-reference tool.—Herman Sutter, Saint Agnes Academy, Houston, TX
Library Journal
This jewel of a reference, now in its second edition, answers just about any question you may have about the usage of American English....Arranged alphabetically, the hefty yet concise tome is also filled with cross references and a quick guide on the inside cover that allows readers to jump to the necessary page without having to leaf through. Yet paging through is a treat because you never know what you will learn next....Essential for wordsmiths, librarians, and literary types of all persuasions.
November 15, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
His book is comprehensive and a browser's delight. The long entry on "hoist(ed) with one's own petar(d)" reveals three common variants. The one on E.E. Cummings should close the lower-case debate for good. And there are more than 9,000 entries and essays on basic or baffling matters like diminutives, expletives, and metaphors--everything from abbreviations to my favorite, zeugma. Thus do I tip my hand and my hat.
October 10, 2003
Parade Magazine
OK, all you grammarians out there--here's a book to make sure you're saying it right. A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, by Bryan Garner is a lively 700-page compendium of good grammar tempered (but not tainted) by common practice.

Parade Magazine

Library Journal
This jewel of a reference, now in its second edition, answers just about any question you may have about the usage of American English. As indicated by lexicographer Garner (Elements of Legal Style), the reason for this update has little to do with massive changes in the language since the 1998 edition. Instead, Garner felt he needed to clarify an overwhelming amount of information about the accurate usage of terms and phrases and had more time for research. His research certainly paid off, as this remarkable reference features over 9000 entries and subentries (38 percent more than the first) and is backed up with 7200 citations, of which 1850 are from the 21st century. Arranged alphabetically, the hefty yet concise tome is also filled with cross references and a quick guide on the inside cover that allows readers to jump to the necessary page without having to leaf through. Yet paging through is a treat because you never know what you will learn next. Garner, whose passion for language is evident throughout, also includes illuminating essays addressing issues of usage and style, neatly listed at the beginning of the book to help users identify them. The entries are detailed and engaging-those for "impactful," "sexism," and "phrasal adjectives," for example, are so thorough that they alone make the book worth the price. Essential for wordsmiths, librarians, and literary types of all persuasions.-Manya S. Chylinski, Ernst & Young Ctr. for Business, Boston Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information.
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780195382754
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
  • Publication date: 8/27/2009
  • Edition number: 3
  • Pages: 1008
  • Sales rank: 58,847
  • Product dimensions: 7.50 (w) x 10.10 (h) x 2.10 (d)

Meet the Author

Bryan Garner is the award-winning author or editor of more than 20 books. He is a prolific lecturer, having taught more than 2,500 writing workshops since the 1991 founding of his company, LawProse, Inc. His works include Garner on Language and Writing and Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, co-written with Justice Antonin Scalia. Garner has served as editor-in-chief of Black's Law Dictionary since 1995, and he is the author of the grammar-and-usage chapter in the venerable Chicago Manual of Style.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt




Chapter One

A

a. A. Choice Between a and an. The indefinite article a is used before words beginning with a consonant sound, including /y/ and /w/ sounds. The other form, an, is used before words beginning with a vowel sound. Hence a European country, a Ouija board, a uniform, an FBI agent, an MBA degree, an SEC filing.

    The distinction between a and an was not solidified until the 19th century. Up to that time, an preceded most words beginning with a vowel, regardless of how the first syllable sounded. The U.S. Constitution, for example, reads: "The Congress shall have Power ... [t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...." U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. But that is no excuse for a late-20th-century writer: "The revisions include ... [f]iling legislation to create an uniform [read a uniform] inspection code." Doris Sue Wong, "Revisions to Title 5 Unveiled," Boston Globe, 2 Aug. 1995, at 25.

    Writers on usage formerly disputed whether the correct article is a or an with historian, historic, and a few other words. The traditional rule is that if the h- is sounded, a is the proper form. Most people following that rule would say a historian and a historic—e.g.: "Democrat Bill Clinton appears within reach of capturing the White House in Tuesday's election, but Republicans hope that late momentum can enable President Bush to win a historic upset." Carl P. Leubsdorf, "Bush Hopes for Late Surge,"Dallas Morning News, 1 Nov. 1992, at 1A. Even H.W. Fowler, in the England of 1926, advocated a before historic(al) and humble (MEU1 at 1).

    The theory behind using an in such a context, however, is that the h- is very weak when the accent is on the second rather than the first syllable (giving rise, by analogy, to an habitual offender, an humanitarian, an hallucinatory image, and an harassed school-teacher). Thus no authority countenances an history, though a few older ones prefer an historian and an historical.

    Today, however, an hypothesis and an historical are likely to strike readers and listeners as affectations. As Mark Twain once wrote, referring to humble, heroic, and historical: "Correct writers of the American language do not put an before those words." The Stolen White Elephant 220 (1882). Anyone who sounds the h- in such words should avoid pretense and use a. An humanitarian is, judged even by the most tolerant standards, a pretentious humanitarian. See herb & humble.

    B. In Distributive Senses. A, in the distributive sense <ten hours a day>, has traditionally been considered preferable to per, which originated in COMMERCIALESE and LEGALESE. But per has muscled its way into idiomatic English in phrases such as 60 miles per hour, one golf cart per couple, and five books per student. Although an could be substituted for per in the first of those phrases, a wouldn't work well in the second or third.

    When the construction requires a PHRASAL ADJECTIVE, per is the only idiomatic word—e.g.: "Our per-unit cost is less than $1,000."/ "The $50-per-parent fee seems unreasonably high."


abandon, vb. See desert.


abandonment; abandon, n. The usual idiom is wild abandon or reckless abandon, not abandonment. The SOED dates the noun abandon (= surrender to natural impulses; freedom from constraint or convention) from the early 19th century. But it records abandonment as sharing this sense from the mid-19th century. Still, abandon is such a preponderant idiom that the two terms ought to be distinguished. In the following sentences, abandon would better accord with modern usage:


* "One worrisome puzzlement: How can my countrymen celebrate in such wild abandonment [read abandon] on the carnage of so many helpless children and the thousands that are disease-ridden and dying every hour?" Ledelle Tompkins, "What Is There to Celebrate in Operation Desert Storm?" Ariz. Republic, 3 July 1991, at A18.
* "By the cocktail hour we feel like kids again, munching canapes with wild abandonment [read abandon] and gulping down our favorite libations." Nancy McIntyre, "Body's Nightly Organ Recitals Drown Out Harmony of Sleep," Ariz. Republic, 12 Mar. 1993, at B11.
* "Like a ventriloquist, the President put these words in the mouth of Dr. King: `... I did not fight for the right of black people to murder other black people with reckless abandonment [read abandon].'" H. Bruce Franklin, "What King Really Would Have Said," Philadelphia Inquirer, 7 Dec. 1993, at A17.


abbreviable. So formed—not abbreviatable. See -ATABLE.

Abbreviations. A. Acronyms and Initialisms. Five points merit our attention here. First, we should be aware of the difference between the two types of abbreviated names. An acronym is made from the first letters or parts of a compound term. It's usually read or spoken as a single word, not letter by letter (e.g., radar = radio detection and ranging). An initialism is also made from the first letters or parts of a compound term, but it's usually sounded letter by letter, not as one word (e.g., r.p.m. = revolutions per minute).

    Second, the question often arises whether to place periods after each letter in an acronym or initialism. Searching for consistency on this point is futile. The trend nowadays is to omit the periods; including them is the more conservative and traditional approach. Yet surely if an acronym is spoken as a single word (e.g., UNESCO), periods are meaningless. If an initialism is made up of lowercase letters, periods are preferable: rpm looks odd as compared with r.p.m., and am (as opposed to a.m.) looks like the verb. One method of determining whether to omit or include periods is to follow the form that the organization itself uses (e.g., IRS, HUD), although inconsistencies are common. (For an anomalous abbreviation, see ID.)

    Third, the best practice is to give the reader some warning of an uncommon acronym by spelling out the words and enclosing the acronym in parentheses when the term is first used. A reference to CARPE Rules may confuse a reader who does not at first realize that three or four lines above this acronym, the writer has made reference to a Committee on Academic Rights, Privileges, and Ethics.

    Fourth, in AmE the tendency is to uppercase all the characters (e.g., GAAP, MADD, NASA). But in BrE, the tendency is to uppercase only the first letter, as in Ifor in this example: "More recently, U.S. officials have acknowledged that a few U.S. troops will be needed early next year because the U.S.-led Implementation Force (Ifor) will not be able to pull all its armour out in time." Laura Silber & Bruce Clark, "U.S. Pledges Continued Troop Support in Bosnia," Fin. Times, 13 June 1996, at 12.

    Finally, as illustrated under (C), the use in a single text of too many abbreviated forms leads to dense and frustrating prose.

    B. Redundant Acronyms. Some acronyms often appear as part of a two-word phrase, in which the second word is also what one of the acronym's letters stands for. Thus, a bank customer withdraws cash from an ATM machine, using a PIN number as a password. A supermarket clerk searches a milk carton for its UPC code. High-school seniors study hard for the SAT test. Economists monitor the CPI Index. American and Russian diplomats sit down to negotiate at the SALT talks. And scientists try to unlock the mysteries of the deadly HIV virus.

    The problem with these phrases, of course, is that they are technically redundant (automated-teller machine machine, personal-identification number number, Universal Product Code code, Scholastic Aptitude Test test, Consumer Price Index Index, Strategic Arms Limitation Talks talks, and human-immunodeficiency virus virus). And while the redundancies may be passable in speech—especially with unfamiliar acronyms—they should be avoided in edited writing.

    For a different type of redundant acronym, see RSVP.

   C. Initialese. One of the most irritating types of pedantry in modern writing is the overuse of abbreviations, especially abbreviated names. Originally, to be sure, abbreviations were intended to serve the convenience of the reader by shortening names so that cumbersome phrases would not have to be repeated in their entirety. The purported simplifications actually simplified. But many writers—especially technical writers—seem to have lost sight of this goal: they allow abbreviated terms to proliferate, and their prose quickly becomes a hybrid-English system of hieroglyphs requiring the reader to refer constantly to the original uses of terms to grasp the meaning. This kind of writing might be thought more scholarly than ordinary, straightforward prose. It isn't. Rather, it's tiresome and inconsiderate writing; it betrays the writer's thoughtlessness toward the reader and a puerile fascination with the insubstantial trappings of scholarship.

    Three examples suffice to illustrate the malady:


* "As a comparison to these item-level indices, the factor-level indices IFS and C_ANR [sic] were both computed for the maximum likelihood factors.... Compression of the factor space tends to decrease both IFS and C_ANR, while excessive expansion is likely to also decrease the C_ANR, while the IFS might be expected to be reasonably stable. Thus, four rotation solutions were computed based upon Matthews & Stanton's (1994) extraction of 21 factors, the Velicer MAP test indicator of 26 (PCA) and 28 (image) factors, and Autoscree indicators of 17 and 21 factors for PCA and image respectively. From these solutions, it was hypothesized that a full 31 factor rotation might provide the optimal C_ANR parameters for the OPQ scales. Further, as a by-product of the use of MLFA, it is possible to compute a test...." P. Barrett et al., "An Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Concept 5.2 Occupational Personality Questionnaire," 69 J. Occupational & Organizational Psychology 1, 12 (1996).
* "For the initial model, the significant variable TRANS is only significantly correlated with SUBNO. SUBCTY is correlated with NI, with SUBNO, and with FSALEPER. NI, however, is significantly correlated with: (1) DOMVIN; (2) METH1; and (3) METH3. In the reduced model, these intercorrelations with NI are not an area for concern...." Karen S. Cravens & Winston T. Shearon, Jr., "An Outcome-Based Assessment of International Transfer Pricing Policy," 31 Int'l J. Accounting 419, 436 (1996) (parentheticals omitted).
* "SLIP, like VALP and ECC, is a defeasible constraint that is obeyed by all the types of head-nexus phrase considered thus far. It guarantees that (except in SLASH-binding contexts that we turn to in a moment) the SLASH value of a phrase is the SLASH value of its head-daughter." Ivan A. Sag, "English Relative Clause Constructions," 33 J. Linguistics 431, 446 (1997).


And so it goes throughout each article.

    In naming something new, one's task is sometimes hopeless: the choice is clear between ALI-ABA CLE Review and American Law Institute-American Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Review, but one cannot choose either enthusiastically. Both sponsors must have their due (in part so that they can have their dues), and the acronyms might gradually become familiar to readers. But they aren't ideal because they give bad first impressions.

    Remember that effective communication takes two—the writer and the reader. Arthur Quiller-Couch reminded writers never to forget the audience:


[T]he obligation of courtesy rests first with the author, who invites the seance, and commonly charges for it. What follows, but that in speaking or writing we have an obligation to put ourselves into the hearer's or reader's place? It is his comfort, his convenience, we have to consult. To express ourselves is a very small part of the business: very small and unimportant as compared with impressing ourselves: the aim of the whole process being to persuade.
Quiller-Couch, On the Art of Writing
291-92 (2d ed. 1943).


Abbreviations are often conveniences for writers but inconveniences for readers. Whenever that is so, they should vanish.


abdomen is most commonly pronounced de-mean/, though some people continue to the old-fashioned/ab-doh-men/.

aberrant, adj.; aberrational; aberrative. These terms appear in order of descending frequency. Aberrant/a-be-rent/ = deviating from behavioral or social norms. Aberrational /a-be-ray-she-nel/ = of or pertaining to an aberration. Aberrative /e-ber-e-tiv/ = tending toward aberration.


aberration; aberrance; aberrancy; aberrant, n. Aberrant, almost always used reference to persons, means "a deviant; deviating from an established norm." ITL [Aberration which is not limited to persons, means (1) "a deviation or departure from what is normal or correct"; or (2) "a mental derangement Aberrance and aberrancy are NEEDLESS VARIANTS of aberration.


abettor; abetter. In both AmE and BrE abettor is the more usual spelling. See -ER (A). Cf. bettor.


abide. A. General Senses.] BLD Abide = (1) to stay <the right of entering and abiding in state in the Union>; (2) to tolerate, withstand <we won't abide that type of misconduct> to obey (construed with by) <we abided by rules>; (4) to await <our decision must a the outcome of this struggle>; or (5) to form or execute (in reference to court orders or judgments) <the lower courts must a the judgments of the Supreme Court>.

   B. Past-Tense and Past-Participial Forms. In two senses ("await" and "execute"). abided is the preferred past tense and participle. In the archaic sense "to stay, dwell," abode is the preferred past tense, either abode or abided is the past participle. For most ordinary purposes, abided serves well without seeming stilted.


ability; capacity. The traditional distinction is that while ability is qualitative, ITL [capacity] ITL is quantitative. Hence, ability refers to a person's power of body or mind < writer of great a ability>; capacity, meaning literally "roomy, spacious," refers figuratively to a person's physical or mental power to receive <her memory has an extraordinary capacity for details>

    For the distinction between capacity and capability see capacity.


abjection; abjectness. The subtle difference between these two is that abjection refers to the condition, abjectness to the state of mind. E.g.: "How does one feel to return to Germany or Austria and see the high standard of living in these countries while remembering the absolute abjection experienced by the victims?" Elliot Welles, "A Painful, Vital Memory," Plain Dealer (Cleveland), 3 Feb. 1995, at 11B./"Hair intact, she would constantly call attention to her classmates' abjectness, perhaps inspiring some male cadet to challenge the headshaving rule on the grounds that it's sexually discriminatory." Ellen Willis, "Ellen Willis," Village Voice, 13 Sept. 1994, at 8. As it happens, the two words occur about equally often.


abjure; adjure. A. Senses Distinguished. Abjure may mean either (1) "to renounce" <Germany abjured the use of force>, or (2) "to avoid" <her evaluation abjured excessive praise>. In bygone days, people were sometimes required to "abjure the realm," i.e., go abroad. Adjure means "to charge or entreat solemnly" <Reagan adjured the Soviets to join him in this noble goal>. See adjure.

    B. Cognate Forms. The noun forms are abjuration (or abjurement—now defunct) and adjuration. The adjectival forms end in -tory. The agent nouns are abjurer and adjurer.


-ABLE. A. Choice of -able or -ible. Many adjectives have competing forms ending in -able and -ible. Some of these have undergone DIFFERENTIATION in meaning; the less commonly used forms in some pairs are merely NEEDLESS VARIANTS of the predominant forms. The lists that follow contain the most troublesome words of this class.

     Unlike -ible, -able is a living suffix that may be added to virtually any verb without an established suffix in either -able or -ible. Following are only some of the hundreds of adjectives preferably spelled -able:


actionable
addable
admittable
advisable
affectable
allegeable
analyzable
annexable
arrestable
ascendable
assertable
assessable
averageable
bailable
blamable
changeable
chargeable
circumscribable
commensurable
committable
condensable
conductable
connectable
contestable
contractable
conversable
convictable
correctable
definable
detectable
diagnosable
discussable
endorsable
enforceable
evadable
excisable
excludable
expandable
extendable
extractable
ignitable
inventable
investable
immovable
improvable
includable
inferable
lapsable
mixable
movable
noticeable
offendable
patentable
persuadable
preventable
processable
protectable
ratable
redressable
referable
retractable
revisable
rinsable
salable
suspendable
tractable
transferable
transmittable
willable


Although -ible is now dead as a combining form in English, the following words still retain that suffix:


accessible
adducible
admissible
audible
avertible
collapsible
collectible
combustible
compactible
compatible
comprehensible
compressible
concussible
contemptible
controvertible
convertible
corrodible
corruptible
credible
deducible
deductible
defeasible
defensible
descendible
destructible
diffusible
digestible
discernible
dismissible
divisible
edible
educible
eligible
erodible
exhaustible
expressible
fallible
feasible
flexible
forcible
fusible
gullible
horrible
impressible
incorrigible
indelible
intelligible
interfusible
invincible
irascible
irresistible
legible
negligible
omissible
oppressible
ostensible
perceptible
perfectible
permissible
plausible
possible
producible
reducible
remissible
reprehensible
repressible
resistible
responsible
reversible
revertible
risible
seducible
sensible
submersible (or
submergible)
suggestible
suppressible
susceptible
terrible
transfusible
transmissible
uncollectible
vendible
visible


Some adjectives with the variant suffixes have different meanings. Thus impassable means "closed, incapable of being traversed"; its twin, impassible, means "unable to feel pain" or, less distinctively, "impassive, emotionless." Passable and passible have correspondingly positive meanings. (These pairs are formed from different Latin roots, L. passus "having suffered" and L. passare "to step.") Similarly, impartible means "not subject to partition" and impartable "capable of being imparted." Conversable means "oral," while conversible is a NEEDLESS VARIANT of convertible. Forcible means either "done by means of force" <forcible entry> or "characterized by force" <forcible behavior>; forceable, much less frequently encountered, would be the better term to describe a door that is "capable of being forced open." See forcible.

    Other variant adjectives, though, are merely duplicative. Typical examples are extendable, extendible, and extensible. The first of these is now prevalent in AmE (though labeled obsolete in the OED). Extensible was, through the mid-20th century, the most common form, but today it trails extendable by a substantial margin, while extendible continues to appear infrequently. Writers and editors ought to settle on the most firmly established form—extendable, which is as well formed as the variants—and trouble their minds with weightier matters. See NEEDLESS VARIANTS, DIFFERENTIATION & MUTE E.

   B. Attaching -able to Nouns. This passive suffix is usually attached to verbs, as in avoidable, forgettable, and reproachable. But sometimes it's attached to nouns, as in marriageable, objectionable, and salable. These do not mean "able to be marriaged," "able to be objectioned," and so on. Although marryable and objectable would have been the more logical forms, time, idiom, and usage have made these and several other forms both ineradicable and unobjectionable.

   C. Attaching -able to Intransitive Verbs. A few words formerly upset purists: dependable (depend-on-able), indispensable (in-dispense-with-able), laughable (laugh-at-able), reliable (rely-on-able), and unaccountable (un-account-for-able). They're indispensable to the modern writer—not at all laughable. See reliable.

   D. Converting -ate Verbs into -able Adjectives. When -able is added to a transitive polysyllabic verb ending in the suffix -ate, that suffix is dropped. Hence, accumulable, calculable, regulable, etc. (See -ATABLE.) Exceptions, however, occur with two-syllable words, such as rebatable and debatable.

  E. Dropping or Retaining the Medial -e-. This question arises in words such as irreconcilable, microwavable, movable, resumable, and salable. Although writers formerly put an -e- before -able, both AmE and BrE generally drop such a medial -e-, except in words with a soft -c- (traceable) or a soft -g- (chargeable). See MUTE E.


able to [+ passive-voice vb.]. This construction is rare—and rightly so. A sentence such as That speech is able to be delivered by anyone can always be advantageously revised: Anyone can [or could] deliver that speech. See PASSIVE VOICE.


ablution (= washing), which appears most commonly in the plural form, should generally be reserved for washing or rinsing as part of a religious rite. E.g.: "She said his health is deteriorating, and he can no longer perform the ritual ablutions necessary for prayer without the help of two cellmates." Holger Jensen, "PLO," Rocky Mountain News, 18 Dec. 1994, at 89A. And the word may belong in exotic contexts—e.g.: "Early bathers were already making their morning ablutions [in the Ganges River]." Glenn Leichman, "Season's Greetings—on the Ganges," Seattle Times, 22 Dec. 1996, at K1. But the word is pretentious, or else facetious, when the reference is to the ordinary act of washing one's face and hands—e.g.: "[Insects] seem particularly attracted to the bath and I have to allow extra time for fishing them out with the nail brush before starting my ablutions." Sarah Biffen, "At Home: A Rest?" Daily Telegraph, 1 Dec. 1996, at 15.


aboard. Usually restricted to ships or planes in BrE, this word is applied broadly in AmE to any public conveyance—e.g.: "The bus had about 35 pupils aboard from Varina and Mehfoud Elementary schools." Mark Bowes, "It Was Close to a `Catastrophe,'" Richmond Times-Dispatch, 18 Jan. 1997, at B1.


abode, as past tense of abide. See abide (B).


abode, place of. This phrase is a pretentious way of referring to someone's home or house.


abolition; abolishment. The latter is a NEEDLESS VARIANT. Cf. admonition (B).


aborigine, as a singular noun, is a BACKFORMATION from the plural aborigines (L.aborgigine "from the beginnings"). Traditionally, the word aboriginal was considered the proper singular, but today aborigine is standard English as a singular noun. (Aboriginal is still current in adjectival uses.)

    The spelling Aborigine, with the initial capital is traditional when referring to the indigenous peoples of Australia.


abort = (1) (of a pregnancy) to end prematurely, (2) (of a fetus) to cause to be expelled before full development; or (3) (of a pregnant woman) to cause to have an abortion. Senses 1 and 2 are more usual than sense 3, which, as an example of HYPALLAGE, strikes many readers as odd. E.g.: "In a case of 1949, the trial judge sentenced a husband who had tried to abort his wife and killed her to five years' penal servitude...." Glanville Williams, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal 155 (1957).


abortifacient. See contraceptive.


abortive; aborted. Abortive may mean (1) "unsuccessful because cut short," or (2) "inchoate." With sense 1, it takes on the figurative sense of aborted (= cut short), as an abortive attempt, i.e., one cut short. (Note that -ive, an active suffix, here has a passive sense.) E.g.: "In the 50 years after the 1916 rising, an abortive anti-British rebellion, nationalists incorporated the tragedy into their vision of `a heroic struggle against seven centuries of British oppression'...." "Famine, Politics Intertwined," USA Today, 15 Jan. 1997, at 2D. Abortive is archaic in reference to abortions of fetuses, except in the sense "causing an abortion."


about. A. And approximately. When possible, use about instead of approximately, a FORMAL WORD. But about shouldn't appear, as it sometimes does, with other terms of approximation such as estimate and guess, because it means "roughly" or "approximately." E.g.: "[T]heir estimate that there are about [delete about] 110,000 minke whales in the northeastern Atlantic has been accepted by the International Whaling Commission." Mary Williams Walsh, "Whalers Hoping to Regain Acceptance," L.A. Times, 5 Sept. 1997, at A5.

   B. And around. When there is a choice between about and around—as in beat around (or about) the bush, strewn around (or about) the garden, or all around (or about) the city— the word around greatly predominates in AmE. In those phrases, about sounds school-marmish.

    C. About the head. Theodore M. Bernstein called this phrase "police-blotter lingo" (The Careful Writer at 5) when used in the sense "on" <the victim was pounded several times about the head>. The phrase might still be common in police blotters, but in published print sources it appears only occasionally— e.g.: "[A] Malaysian companion, 15, suffered a punctured eardrum from the interrogator's blows about the head." William Safire, "Singapore Adds Insult to Injury," Star Trib. (Minneapolis), 24 May 1994, at 15A.

   D. At about. This phrase is sometimes criticized as a REDUNDANCY, the argument being that about can often do the work by itself. But in many contexts, especially those involving expressions of time, the phrase at about is common, idiomatic, and unimpeachable <we'll arrive at about 9:00 tonight>.


above. A. Meaning "more than" or "longer than." Restrict this usage to informal contexts. "Above [read More than] 600 people attended the reception."/ "Now, the RBI has allowed only the incentive of one percent for one-year deposits, 1.5 percent for two-year deposits and two percent for deposits above two years [read of two years or more or of longer than two years]." "NBFCs Allowed to Reimburse Part of Broker's Expenses," Econ. Times, 3 Oct. 1996, at 8. Cf. over (A).

    B. For above-mentioned. Above is an acceptable ellipsis for above-mentioned, and it is much less inelegant <the above statements are his last recorded ones>.

    It was long thought that above could not properly act as an adjective. But the word has been so used throughout the 20th century, even by the best writers. The OED records this use from 1873 and says that above "stands attributively," through ellipsis, for above said, above written, above mentioned, or some other phrase.

    Some critics have suggested that above in this sense should refer only to something mentioned previously on the same page, but this restriction seems unduly narrow. Still, it's often better to make the reference exact by giving a page or paragraph number, rather than the vague reference made possible by above. Idiom will not, however, allow above to modify all nouns: above vehicle is unidiomatic for vehicle mentioned above. (If you must say mentioned, put above after that word.) Better yet would be the vehicle, if readers will know from the context which one you're talking about.

    Less common than the adjectival above is the noun use <the above is entirely accurate>. Pooley's assessment still stands: "Any writer may feel free at any time to use `the above statement,' and with only slightly less assurance, `the above will prove.' In either case, he has the authority of scholars and standard literature." Robert C. Pooley, Teaching English Usage 130 (1946).


abridgable. So spelled—not abridgeable. See MUTE E.


abridgment; abridgement. The first spelling is AmE; the second is BrE. Cf. acknowledgment & judgment.


abrogable. So formed—not abrogatable. See -ATABLE.

(Continues...)

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Preface, ix
Acknowledgments, xvii
List of Essay Entries, xix
List of Abbreviations, xxv
Pronunciation Guide, xxvii
A Timeline of Books on Usage, 709
Select Bibliography, 721
Read More Show Less

Interviews & Essays

Exclusive Author Essay
"Can an educated American say ____?" You can fill in the blank with any number of words and phrases. My friend and myself. It's me. Between you and I. Question as to whether. Fulsome praise. Hopefully. Final destination. Orientate. Center around. Someplace. Snuck. Seldom ever. Uncategorically. There are thousands more. These are questions that I field weekly in professional writing seminars. I do my best to answer them in A Dictionary of Modern American Usage.

One perennial question emerges when people ask about grammar: "What grammar book do you recommend?" What the person really wants isn't a grammar at all, but a good dictionary of usage. This underappreciated genre has alphabetical listings of all the most common trouble spots in the language. It's partly grammar ("fused participles"), partly word choice ("self-deprecating" vs. "self-depreciating"), and sometimes a mixture of the two ("It's me" vs. "It's I"). There are dozens of essays on subjects as diverse as Airlinese, Jargon, Punctuation, and Subject-Verb Agreement.

The language is shifting under your very tongue in ways that might surprise you. A Dictionary of Modern American Usage is intended to divert and entertain while providing guidance on where to stand if you want to avoid linguistic fault lines. My guidance is a blend of the traditional and the modern. I favor keeping our continuity with the past without letting the language become petrified. And I try to be down-to-earth. So forget "It's I."

How did I get into this?

At the age of 15, I realized that the use of the English language was my main intellectual interest. That being so, David Foster Wallace says in Harper's magazine that I must have been "repeatedly and savagely wedgied" as a teenager. Not so -- though I take his point. Actually, I kept my long forays to the college library a little secret within the family and still lettered in golf, led the high school band as drum major, and acted in school plays. By my junior year, when I had acquired the habit of occasionally using big words ("epizeuxis" and "ignoratio elenchi" were among my favorites), I was too big for the kind of abuse Wallace imagines. It took a few more years for me to outgrow this annoying habit of using big words, but in the meantime I worked assiduously to build my vocabulary.

And I had discovered my favorite literary genre: the dictionary of usage. H. W. Fowler, Wilson Follett, Theodore Bernstein, and Eric Partridge had become my literary heroes. By the time I was ready for college, I had essentially memorized everything that these writers had said about English usage -- in the same way that other kids memorize sports stats or car models. Not just any linguistic facts interested me: They had to be genuinely useful facts. They had to help me (or anyone) write better.

In college, studying liberal arts at the University of Texas, I was drawn to courses on literature, rhetoric, literary criticism, and the history of the English language. My plan was still, as it had been in high school, to become a lawyer and use my rhetorical skills within the law. But my success in publishing articles on Shakespearean language -- and the encouragement of my undergraduate mentors, the Shakespearean specialist John W. Velz and the linguistic historian Thomas Cable -- led me to flirt with pursuing a Ph.D. in English, with a focus on lexicography. I almost went that route.

But no. My fiancée (now my wife), a graduate student in political science, said she was convinced that I was meant to be a lawyer -- not an English professor. I agreed. When law school began, I was immediately struck by how many archaic phrases -- Elizabethan phrases -- were popping up in the judicial decisions I was reading. I went to the library to see what scholars had written about legal language, found very little to my liking, and immediately decided to write a book about legal language. Within the first week of law school, I had named it A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. I wanted it to do for lawyers what H. W. Fowler had done for writers at large.

I ended up founding LawProse, Inc., which provides seminars for lawyers on brief writing and contract drafting. I wrote or edited more books on law and language, most notably The Elements of Legal Style and Black's Law Dictionary. I've now produced four editions of Black's -- the unabridged deluxe, the regular unabridged, the abridged, and the pocket. My whole approach to legal lexicography has been to try to make the law as accessible as possible to everyone -- to persuade lawyers that it's not in their best interests to use highfalutin jargon and gobbledygook. After all, avoiding these bad habits promotes clear thinking.

But my first love is the English language -- not just the legal part of the English language. So when Oxford asked me to write a dictionary of American usage, I was delighted at the prospect of broadening my horizons and dealing with the English language as a whole. Since I was following Fowler's model, I called it A Dictionary of Modern American Usage. The idea was to provide a guide for educated Americans who want an answer to the question, "Can I say this and still have credibility with readers and listeners?" My intended readers, quite simply, are educated people -- students, businesspeople, professors, novelists, nonfiction writers, newscasters, you name it -- who want authoritative guidance on where the language stands today.

"May I split an infinitive?" (Yes, but first you really need to know what one is.) "May I split a verb phrase?" (You'd better: Any other placement is awkward. And grammarians have consistently said -- there's a split!-- this since 1782!) "May I end a sentence with a preposition?" (If you want to. I have a two-page essay on the subject.) "Should I use the serial comma?" (Yes, unless you're a journalist.) On and on the questions go. My rulings -- since I'm playing the role of judge -- add up to a kind of linguistic jurisprudence. Like any judge, I have biases. Mine are in favor of clarity, simplicity, and credibility. (Bryan A. Garner)

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 4.5
( 11 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(8)

4 Star

(2)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(1)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 11 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 17, 2010

    Not a "must have" but definitely a valuable tool

    I'm surprised I dont see this reference book more often. It's completely full of all the nuances in English most people never think twice about (including superlatives!) It's also very easy to follow and it's not difficult locating anything English-related.
    This book also requires a lot of self-motivation to absorb, so don't buy it unless you use it as frequently as possible.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted December 14, 2009

    Awesome Reference

    This is a must have book for anyone in business. In a world where poor English skills rule the day, this resource can help you rise above the rest in your writing.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted February 10, 2014

    highly recommended

    this edition will suffice as the most meticulous guide, both synchronic and diachronic, for speakers and writers of american english for the next couple of decades, though with regard to rare minutiae garner may be somewhat too conservative - e.g.the pronunciation for the plural of house is given only as houzis (which i regard as correct) while houses (with the first s as s) seems rapidly replacing the former even among educated speakers as i hear frequently on television. for good examples of garner's approach see the entries under "can," "moot," "farther," as well as details such as use of diacritical marks, sequence of writing dates, formation of plurals, neologisms, foreign words and expressions - the list would be too long to be truly representative - in short garner's approach is thorough, virtually exhaustive, and clear.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted February 6, 2012

    more from this reviewer

    Great stuff!

    This is a great reference book, and even better as an ebook that you can look at on an iPhone while on the bus, etc. I used it earlier today to argue a grammar point with my boss--and won my argument!

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted August 6, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted June 22, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted October 11, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted March 5, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted July 30, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted February 14, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted September 29, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing all of 11 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)