I am unabashedly in love with “Origins of the Specious”. It’s got a clever title, alluding to that controversially correct tome of Darwin’s, an homage to a field of study with even more ill-informed cranks than grammar. More importantly, it’s a wonderful book, one that I would despise for its attempt to render me superfluous, were it not for its friendly approachable style, and how very spot-on it is.
The book is written by Patricia O’Conner and Stewart Kellerman, who argue the same sorts of points as I do, but who came to their opinions through a much different path. They are not the rebellious sort — a point that they establish right in the book’s introduction — but unlike most popular grammarians, who upon seeing a singular they or other such “mistake” shove their fingers into their ears like a petulant child and scream “NA NA NA! I can’t understand you! You’re stupid!”, O’Conner and Kellerman are sensible. If choosing a grammarian were like selecting a president, they’d win — hands down — because they’re the ones you could sit down and have a meal with. They’re reasonable, and more importantly, they’re right. They are proponents of a simple principle, that language usage is a democracy:
“People often ask me who decides what’s right. The answer is we all do. Everybody has a vote. The ‘rules’ are simply what educated speakers generally accept as right or wrong at a given time. […] You may kick and scream too, when you find out that many of your most cherished beliefs about English are as phony as a three-dollar bill. Hey, I know the feeling! […] Keep an open mind and expect the unexpected. Feel free to grumble too. Democracy can be exasperating when you’re on the losing side. But English is a work in progress, and always will be […]” (pg. xvii)
“Origins” is a list of lexical, grammatical, and etymological myths, expertly debunked. It’s a massacre of the misinformed beliefs of most prescriptivists: common edicts against none are (p. 26), drive friendly (p.29), and data is (p. 177), among others, all fall under their sword. The best part is that these sword-wielders are not young Turks, who prescriptivists would readily write off, but rather the trusted old guard. O’Conner and Kellerman aren’t writing because they believe that what they write is the way language should be, but rather because what they write is what language is. Tired of the knowing winks and hardy slaps on the back that misinformed prescriptivists give them, they fight back, showing everyone where they’re wrong. In the introduction, they even note that they occasionally regret their findings, yet they present them nevertheless. This is science, done right, and it alone would justify the book.
“Origins” is split up into chapters, each covering a separate area of the language. The first considers the claim that Americans are destroying the proper English of the Brits. I hope it’s not giving away too much to reveal that O’Conner and Kellerman conclude that we aren’t. In fact, on many points American English is more conservative than British English. The next chapter does what I do, debunking spurious grammar edicts, and this was the part of the book that appealed most to me. It was top-notch. Others might prefer the chapters on mangled words and idioms, or on the etymology of popular words and phrases, or on fractured French borrowings (the gallingly non-Gallic pronunciation of lingerie, for instance). There’s something for everyone who likes words and is interested in their real backstories.
But best of all, the book is well-written, easy to read, and unremittingly pleasant (unlike many grammar books). I read it in a week, despite the deadlines I had looming. Those days I longed for the bus ride, when I’d set aside time to set aside my other work and devote myself to the book. I took the long way home on occasion to squeeze a few more pages in. I read in bed with the lights off, a small desk lamp illuminating the pages so everyone would think I was asleep and not bother me.
All in all, it’s a great book, assuming you’re into this kind of thing — which, if you’re reading this blog, you almost certainly are.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 10, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Yvonne Rathbone
O’Connor also wrote “Woe Is I,” one of the required texts for one of UC Berkeley’s Editing courses. I will have check this new book out.
November 12, 2009 at 2:38 am
Cecily
It’s worth mentioning that the book is written explicitly from an American perspective, and whilst it draws clear distinctions between BrE and AmE, it may not be suitable for someone wanting a guide to BrE. Nevertheless, for general interest, it looks fascinating and well written, even for those of us “across the pond”.
November 15, 2009 at 1:01 am
Vance
hardy slaps on the back
Having dispatched “career” vs. “careen”, how about “hardy” vs. “hearty”? ;-)
November 16, 2009 at 10:40 am
mike
>considers the claim that Americans are destroying the proper English of the Brits
This is not a claim that is easily debunked, since it really has little to do with linguistics. :-)
November 20, 2009 at 7:36 am
goofy
The authors of this book write a blog at http://www.grammarphobia.com. Usually they answer questions about peeves. I just noticed that in the November 19 entry they mention The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. A usage advice column that mentions one of the foremost references on descriptive grammar!
July 26, 2010 at 9:02 am
Tom S. Fox
What’s supposed to be wrong with “drive friendly”?
July 26, 2010 at 10:49 am
Gabe
Tom: The claim is that “friendly” is an adjective that modifies a verb, and that’s supposedly unacceptable. It’s a similar objection to that against drive slow.
July 26, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Tom S. Fox
But what are we supposed to say instead? Friendlily?
July 26, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Gabe
Yep, in the discussion in the book, the opponent of “drive friendly” is fighting in favor of “drive friendlily”, as absurd as that sounds.
July 26, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Tom S. Fox
Apparently, that word does exist: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/friendlily
It’s still weird.