The Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style - pdf [a0b10c110]

The Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style

The Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style covers a wide range of topics from grammar and punctuation to style and word choice. Drawing on more than 2,000 real-life examples of questionable usage, it features topics found in no comparable reference work, such as clear examples and definitions in all word entries and explanations of misunderstood and misused words and clichés. This authoritative and highly readable guide provides exceptionally clear answers in plain language to the most complicated questions about English. It will be welcomed by anyone who cares about the way words are used.

Product Details

Language: English
ISBN-10: 0142000469
ISBN-13: 978-0142000465

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review
As a practical guide to correct grammar and word choice, The Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style makes an excellent addition to the reference shelf of any high school or college student, and those who write professionally will get plenty of use out of it as well. Words are arranged alphabetically, and thorough cross-referencing makes it fairly easy to track down specific answers, from the plural of "rhinoceros" to when "due to" is an acceptable phrase.
Each entry gives examples of correct and incorrect usage, and usually includes a short explanation of the rule. When the rule is vague or misleading, author Paul Lovinger uses humor and a friendly attitude in explaining the mysteries of American English, and his examples of improper style are likely to make a lasting impression. The food writer who dared to describe a bland eggplant as "sultry" is gently mocked (what is "feverishly passionate" about a vegetable?), and the copy editor who is found "trying to be clever and not succeeding" may think twice before attempting another terrible pun. Large groups, such as "plurals," "verbs," "punctuation," and "numbers," have multiple pages devoted to them, and are broken down into simple groupings that newer students of grammar will have little trouble deciphering. Definitions of individual words are straightforward, and after a little study, you'll have those tricky choices like "nauseous/nauseated" and "farther/further" mastered. If you think you're past these little mistakes, remember that every example of poor usage cited by Lovinger comes from a professional--even experts can use a refresher course sometimes. --Jill Lightner --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal
This alphabetically arranged resource features specific words and general-usage topics that can confound readers, writers, and editors alike. Typical usage errors include referring to "Frankenstein's monster" as "Frankenstein," using "try and" instead of "try to," and describing a parallel or coincidental situation as "ironic." The 75 topic entries cover subjects as varied as abbreviations, collective nouns, homophones, prepositions, punctuation, and, interestingly, Iran, often erroneously referred to as Arab. This compact reference work will prove handy for users struggling with the differences between flaunt and flout; gantlet, gauntlet, and gamut; hypothesis and theory; and homophonic terms such as allude/elude or persecute/prosecute. Numerous cross references and 2000 richly contemporary examples replete with quotations add to this tool's usefulness. Lovinger is a former reporter and newspaper columnist, and many of the examples are derived from the world of journalism. Despite this emphasis on media usage, this is still a worthwhile purchase for libraries that already own The New Fowler's Modern English Usage (LJ 3/15/97). Recommended for wordsmiths, arbiters of good usage, and larger collections.DElizabeth Connor, Medical Univ. of South Carolina Lib., Charleston
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Reviews

This is the most amazingly bad usage manual I know of. The problem is not that Lovinger gives conventional advice, though he does. He can be relied upon to give the company line for most of the usual suspects. The problem is that he tries to go beyond this. He has entries for many words not found in other manuals. This would be a point in his favor were he not wholly incompetent to make original judgments.
The possible examples are myriad, but a few will have to serve. Lovinger is weak in English grammar, as illustrated in his entry for "Broadside". He criticizes "A Union Pacific train slammed broadside...into a station wagon..." on the grounds that "unless it leaves its track, a train is not likely to hit anything 'broadside'." This apparently is based on the false belief that an adverb cannot refer to a characteristic of the object of the verb. For example, in "John carefully measured the room" carefulness is a characteristic of John. But in "John measured the room lengthwise" it is the room which is lengthwise, not John. The two constructions can even be combined in one sentence: "John carefully measured the room lengthwise." So Lovinger has implicitly invented a bogus rule of English grammar.
Even when he gives correct information it is often in a very unhelpful way. In the article "Plurals and singulars" he notes, correctly, that "coffee, fruit, silk, steel, tea, wheat, and wool are treated as singular except when different types or varieties are considred; then s is affixes and it becomes plural." This would naturally lead to a discussion of mass and count nouns, but no such discussion is to be found. (He has a discussion elsewhere of collective nouns, but collective nouns are not the same as mass nouns.) These words are listed in the sub-entry of "Creatures; peculiarities".

Many usage dictionaries exist, and all careful writers and speakers need one in an age when seemingly anything goes even in formal settings. The problem is which to use. The Penguin Dictionary may not be the best but is one of the easiest to find and less expensive than many. It is also more than adequate for most purposes; nearly all traditional grammatical and mechanical hang-ups are here, and Paul Lovinger goes out of his way to include many entries found in few or other places. Quite a few are clearly pet peeves, but some are very useful. Unlike many usage dictionaries, especially older ones, this also has invaluable guides to current problems such as how to avoid offending various groups. Some may dismiss this as the kind of political correctness that does not belong in such a book, but Lovinger claims to value grammatical over political correctness. His arguments for and explanations of his inclusions are at any rate convincing, and like it or not, anyone writing today must deal with such issues. That said, the fact that this book is a decade old means it is not quite up to date here - so fast do such things change. Far more important in any case is that the entries are almost always remarkably clear. Unlike so many guides, this actually defines each concept and gives both correct and incorrect examples; perhaps more importantly, it says why rules exist - when there is a reason - and why bad examples are incorrect. Finally, Lovinger avoids the annoying over reliance on cross-references that plague so many guides, though there may still be too many for some, and the alphabetical listing makes browsing easy.