H.W. Fowler (1858–1933)

I have to agree with the more erudite reviews already posted: in some ways, this is a 5-star work. In others, it's a write-off.

As a writer myself, I find Fowler to be one of the pre-eminent reference texts. He covers a vast range of words and phrases - from the regularly misused to archaisms which, when they are used, need clarifying - with a wit that often borders on scathing. It's great fun to be searching for a simple definition or clarification, and end up having a good giggle at the same time. Because the book was written in the 'glory days' of the early 20th century, Fowler takes time to explain his stance, without resorting to dumbing down the information.

On the other hand, as other commentators have noted, one of the joys of the English language is its evolution. I believe that the history of a word is vitally important, that being more than simply competent in your language is a great gift, and thus am I against these dimwitted arguments to simplify our spelling, or limit our general vocabulary in academic institutions or the media. However, language is in a state of constant flux, and to argue that there is only ever one correct usage of a word or term is ridiculous. Something that was correct in 1926 for Fowler may be ludicrous for us in 2012, and may have been equally so for Elizabeth I, or Samuel Johnson, or Jane Austen. Beyond this, Fowler seems to be confused about the distinction between formal and informal language use. Is idomatic English to be held to the same standards as formal documents? Isn't one of the joys of being proficient in your language, that you can stretch the boundaries of meaning and definition - both in a parodic, conversational manner, and in a serious way? As with anyone who grows passionate about a subject that is steeped in tradition, I always feel torn in these situations: to revere Fowler for his wit, intelligence, and passion? Or bemoan him for being a pedant?

The question lingers...… (lisätietoja)