Tag Archives: Patricia O’Conner

My Favorite Book on English

Patricia O’Conner has done it again: she has updated and revised her classic book on writing and English usage, Woe Is I. I can hardly tell you how much I love this book. Before you stop reading, let me tell you that you will laugh out loud on just about every page. OK, read on. O’Conner realizes how all languages change over time, which is why she revised this classic book to fit with current and accepted usage. This is the fourth edition and, as English changes, there will be a fifth and a sixth and a twentieth.

O’Conner writes in everyday English. Here are a few chapter titles:

PLURALS BEFORE SWINE  Blunders with Numbers

YOURS TRULY  The Possessive and the Possessed

COMMA SUTRA  The Joy of Punctuation

DEATH SENTENCE   Do Clichés Deserve to Die?

THE LIVING DEAD    Let Bygone Rules Be Gone

Here’s an explanation about subject-verb agreement: “A substance was stuck to Sam’s shoe.”  Or  “A green, slimy, and foul-smelling substance was stuck to Sam’s shoe.” O’Conner adds, “The subject is substance and it stays singular no matter how many disgusting adjectives you pile on.”

See? Not your typical book about English and writing. This one is Wonderful. Entertaining. Fun. Comprehensible. Helpful. Essential.

O’Conner also has a blog to which she posts almost every day, giving explanations about questions people (including me) have submitted. If you subscribe, you’ll get it in your inbox. It’s definitely not spam: www.grammarphobia.com

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under All things having to do with the English language

Nieces, Nephews, and Cousins

I get a daily email you might be interested in: http://www.Grammarphobia.com. The primary author is Patricia O’Conner, who wrote my favorite grammar book, Woe Is I. (Yes, that is grammatically correct, but don’t worry.) In addition to being extremely informative, Pat writes with a wonderful sense of humor—many fun connections and plays on words. I can’t recommend this book highly enough.

In today’s Grammarphobia email, a reader asked her why we have words indicating gender for nieces and nephews but use only cousin, without showing whether that cousin is male or female. In fact, said Pat, a gendered word does exist: cousiness. Who knew, right? It’s archaic and rarely seen today, so you can forget about it.

O’Conner quotes Joanna Rubery, a former online editor for Oxford Dictionaries:

“Anthropologists,” she writes, “have identified at least ten different kinship systems in use around the world.” The simplest is the Hawaiian system, which “makes no distinction between siblings and cousins,” while the most complex, the Sudanese system, “has a different name for each individual on the family tree. There are different words for aunt and uncle depending on whether they are related by blood or marriage; specific terms for in-laws depending on age; and different words for grandchildren depending on lineage.”

In Chinese, she says, “our simple cousin can be translated in at least eight different ways, not just according to whether the cousin is male or female, but also whether they are on the father’s or mother’s side, and whether they are older or younger than the speaker.”

Her conclusion: “Perhaps our generic word cousin is quite handy, after all.”

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under All things having to do with the English language