- ISBN13: 9781594488900
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product Description
It’s been called “possibly the most popular book on grammar ever published.” Now the witty bestseller that took the nation by storm is back in a revised, expanded edition with new dos and don’ts from top to bottom.
In this new Woe Is I, Patricia T. O’Conner displays the same fresh, irreverent humor that has charmed hundreds of thousands of readers. There are new chapters on spelling and pronunciation, and updates throughout. But you’ll find the same d… More >>
Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe’s Guide to Better English in Plain English, Third Edition
Tags: bestseller, Better, edition, English, grammar, Grammarphobe's, guide, guide to better english, hundreds of thousands, irreverent humor, o conner, Plain, pronunciation, remainder mark, Spelling, Third, top to bottom, woe
#1 by Kate on January 28, 2010 - 3:03 am
I found this book to be incredibly insulting to my knowledge. While O’Connors certainly knows how to entertain, she does the English language no favors in Woe is I. Her style of writing is poor to say the least, and the content in even worse. I would not recommend this book to anyone who truly wants to perfect their understanding of American- English grammar.
Rating: 1 / 5
#2 by Michael J. Connor on January 28, 2010 - 4:07 am
The first place I went to find out about “woe is I” was in the index.
I looked up “woe” but the word was not there. I looked up “I” which
directs the reader to pages 10-13. “Woe is I” is not treated in these
pages. Not having a discussed topic listed in an index is a sign of a
poor index. I had to find it for myself. Luckily, I did not have to
read too far, because “woe is me” is briefly discussed in the
introduction:
“Hundreds of years after the first Ophelia cried “Woe
is me” some pedants would argue that Shakespeare should have written
“Woe is I” or “Woe is unto me.” (Never mind that the rules of English
grammar weren’t even formalized in Shakespeare’s day.) The point is
no one is exempt from having his pronouns second guessed.”
First of
all, who are these pedants? O’Connor does not name them but I suspect
she is referring to an “On Language” column written by William Safire
and republished in his “In Love with Norma Loquendi” pages xiii-xv.
Secondly she does not explain the grammar of “woe is me” at all and
gives no hint if she prefers that to “woe is I” or “woe is unto me.”
Did Shakespeare use the wrong case? Or is there something else going
on? My objection to O’Connor is that she raised the issue of “woe is
me” but did not explain it. This is not just a matter of second
guessing which pronoun Shakespeare should have used. It is a matter
of understanding the grammatical rules of Early Modern English. We
know a great deal about the grammar of Early Modern English, the
English of Shakespeare, because of scholars like E. A. Abbott and
Wilhelm Franz. We know from them that the “me” in “woe is me” is not
in the place of the nomanative “I” but a dative pronoun. We know from
them that dative pronouns, indirect objects and the like, were much
less likely to have a preposition in front of them in Early Modern
English than in Present Day English. But O’Connor makes no mention of
this. Readers will have to go else where to get this kind of
information. If you want to know more information “woe is me” I can
recommend a few books to look at. Abbott’s “Shakespearian Grammar”
and Onions’ “Modern English Syntax” treat various constructions with
“woe” with admirable brevity. For comprehensive treatment readers
should read Maetzner’s “Englische Grammatik” and Franz’s “Die Sprache
Shakespeares in Vers und Prosa.”
As for the rest of O’Connor’s book
I would recommned that readers be skeptical and suspicious of her
conclusions.
Rating: 1 / 5
#3 by Current 3L on January 28, 2010 - 4:29 am
In linguistics, grammatical “experts” are referred to as prescriptivists–those who say that there is a right way and a wrong way to use a language. Query, however, what is the point of a language–to communicate an idea between people. So long as you can meet this objective, a linguist would say you have met your goal. Saying, as Ms. O’Conner does, that you shouldn’t talk to certain people due to their grammatical choices only reinforces an elitist attitude which is almost religious in nature where grammatical prophets are deemed heretics and outcast from the elite just as quickly. Instead, we should appreciate the differences among people, see the beauty in the differences in language, try not to offend others with our language, and appreciate the beautiful miracle that is language. To do otherwise is to miss out on the wonder of spontaneous order that is language.
Rating: 1 / 5
#4 by Anonymous on January 28, 2010 - 7:04 am
I didn’t like this book at all. I couldn’t cut through the “humor” the author tried to portray to see what points she was actually trying to make. Was difficult reading. Not recommended.
Rating: 1 / 5
#5 by Anonymous on January 28, 2010 - 9:33 am
O’Connor oversimplifies the grammar she is attempting to teach. Just how many times does she have to write about they’re, their and there? It seems that she repeats herself throughout many of her chapters. I expected this book to provide a challenge for me, instead it was just confirming things I already knew. This is truly for the grammarphobe, one who has little grasp of writing correctly. She does point out some good things though. One example is that someone can get away with more errors in speaking than in writing. She also addresses the fact that some of us learned incorrect English as spoken English.
Rating: 2 / 5