경문사

쇼핑몰 >  수입도서 >  ELT >  Vocabulary

Fowler's Modern English Usage  무료배송

 
지은이 : R. W. Burchfield
출판사 : Oxford
판수 : New Ed edition
페이지수 : 874
ISBN : 0198610211
예상출고일 : 입금확인후 2일 이내
주문수량 :
도서가격 : 47,530원 ( 무료배송 )
적립금 : 1,426 Point
     

 
"Fowlers" has sold over a million copies over seven decades. For this new revision, eminent lexicographer Robert Burchfield has rewritten or otherwise enhanced hundreds of entries and has added twenty-four new entries in a special supplement. The volume remains the classic guide to English usage worldwide. Users will find practical help with grammar, syntax, style, and choice of words; clear guidance on usage offered in light of the language of the 1990s, with many new insights into how English is used today; in-depth coverage of both British and American English, together with aspects of the English of Australia; and wide-ranging illustrative examples, including samples from an international selection of newspapers, journals, and periodicals, as well as from well-known authors such as Martin Amis, Anita Brookner, Ruth Rendell, and John Updike. Whether you have a question about split infinitives, unattached participles, political correctness, or so on, you will find a clear and reliable answer here. A charming blend of information and good humor, The New Fowler's Modern English Usage offers advice and background information on all aspects of English language, from grammar to spelling to literary style. It is a godsend for writers, broadcasters, journalists, and anyone else who wants to write and speak well.--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

The original 'Fowler' was Henry Watson Fowler (1858-1933), a teacher and writer. He was also the author, with his brother Francis, of The King's English (1906) and the first edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1911).

Robert Burchfield (1923-2004), a New Zealander by birth, held the post of Chief Editor of Oxford English Dictionaries between 1971 and 1984 and was the Editor of the final volumes of the Oxford English Dictionary Supplements. He was also the editor of The New Zealand Pocket Oxford Dictionary (1986) and, with C. T. Onions and G. W. S. Friedrichsen, of The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966).


Preface to the Third Edition; Acknowledgements; Dedication, 1926; Key to the Pronunciation; Abbreviations and Symbols; Bibliographical Abbreviations; A-Z; Preface to the Supplement of the Revised Third Edition; Supplement

`Review from previous edition Full of lucid advice' Daily Express 15.7.00
"I use this book lots, and always keep it handy when I'm writing. The explanations are long enough to be clear and comprehensive, and there are lots of examples of how words should and should not be used.
Some reviewers have commented that this third edition isn't true to Fowler himself. Well, language changes, and given that Fowler himself died in 1933, of course this third edition differs from the original! Quite right too!
If you want the original, buy the original. If you want advice on how to write today, you've got to buy this. "

"I have never seen the other editions of Fowler, so I perhaps approach this version with more objectivity than the many who have panned it. I found Burchfield's descriptive approach much more useful than the recent Strunk and White, which is so prescriptive that it is dogmatic and authoritarian without being very enlightening. Burchfield's Fowler may or may not be Fowler, but it is comprehensive and up-to-date, and that is good for those who need state-of-the-art usage. It is certainly not a quick-and-dirty pocket guide, but excellent analysis for those who need to go deep.

It's all a question of what you are looking for. "

"I am a non-native English speaker. So naturally I like prescriptive English usage guides, and have an inherent doubt over the newer 멶escriptive ones뾋 do not feel I am guided enough. For this reason, I did not think this book worth buying, after reading some reviews of this book. However, my opinions turned around 180 after browsing a few pages in a bookstore.

Take for example the use of 멻opefully. Previous guides I read say that using it in the meaning 멗 hope is not recommended in formal contexts, but the reason they give is not persuasive. Burchfield powerfully argues for the VALIDITY of 몊entence adverb, cites historical evidence of the usage, and concludes it with: 몊ince at least the 17c., certain adverbs in -ly have acquired the ability to qualify a predication or assertion as a whole.... In the last third of the 20c., this little-used and scarcely observed mechanism of the language has broken loose.... Conservative speakers, taken unawares by the sudden expansion of an unrecognized type of construction, have exploded with resentment that is unlikely to fade away before at least the end of the 20c. Well, I am persuaded enough now to use 멻opefully with a clear conscience. I believe he has the authority to tell the trend and direction of the English language.

The books takes into account different variants of the English language, including British, American, Australian, Canadian, etc., and its style is light-hearted and humorous. For example, when reading about whether to use English plural forms or Latin plural forms for Latin words in English, I cannot help laughing when I read: 몏hen formal knowledge of Latin rules is fading fast, it is not surprising that there should be a general movement towards the English plurals ... but ... a degree of self-satisfaction is certainly in order if a knowledgeable person chooses to retain the Latin plural form. I wish I would not shy away to correct others 멌riteria 1 :-).

The book is both historical and modern. It is not pedagogical, and is fun to read. I highly recommend it to anyone who is serious about writing and speaking good English. "

"That's what Thomas Aquinas suggested we consider when assessing anything - What is it in itself?

This is not Fowler's (the second edition), even though the cover indicates that the publisher would be happy for you to believe it is. The introduction makes it plain that this a wholly different kettle of fish to the beloved Fowler's. It is less prescriptive, as other reviewers have noted. It is drier, there is less wit, less opinion, and perhaps less wisdom. I find it less well organised than Fowler's.

But it is very good at what it is trying to do: offer a description of modern English usage, including English used in the Americas and other far-flung locations. If you are a casual reader I would probably still recommend Fowler's first, just because it's generally the more enjoyable read. Also, you can pick it up for about 50 cents. If you are a language maven or work with words I can't imagine you'd want to be without this, although I'd expect you to also have Fowler's on your shelf.

Fowler's tells you what to do, although of course you can disagree, and in many cases the passage of time means you must if you want to be understood. This edition just lays out the land and lets the reader decide. Either way it's still your decision, but responding to Fowler's prescription is more fun than just choosing between dry options. I prefer the more prescriptive approach of Fowler's, so like others I want that approach with this currency (or might that be currentness, I'll have to check...), but in itself - this is very good at what it intends to be. "

"I've used the first three editions of this book, and find the second edition to be the most useful and interesting. I do not recommend any of this series to the casual English speaker who would only like to avoid glaring grammatical mistakes; there are simpler guides better targeting this. Key to efficiently benefiting from this book is knowing when to consult it. Thus, this book is best appreciated by someone with an already strong verbal command who recognizes opportunities to make subtle improvements. "

"Find a used second edition. In good shape, because you will wear it out.

Probably the most useful reference for a writer in addition to a good

style manual. Not just the what but the why - with wonderful examples"

"Without this book on your shelf, how can you be sure when to use 'further' rather than 'farther,' 'that' instead of 'which'? You can't--it's an essential reference for every writer--fiction or nonfiction--who wants his or her work to show itself at the level of commercial professionalism. "

"...but it is out of date. The fact is that feminism has forced us to recognize (for example) that the ambiguity of "he" MEANS something, namely, the very idea of patriarchal speaking-for, and more generally the notion of speaking-for-another.

The fact is that demotic speech, in ignoring tense rules that are themselves demotic with respect to older layers, is a bold attempt to make sense of that which is deliberately and with classist and racist intent obfuscated.

The irony, the paradox, is that the curmudgeon at one and the same time insists on being quite prolix on a fine Fowler point, but when an attempt is made to be equally prolix on matters of linguistic justice, that very same curmudgeon paints himself with woad and reverts to barbarism.

Underneath the academic gown is brute force, in other words.

If you want to be a professional bore and ass, if you long to be a Dead on arrival White Male, by all means get the "real" Fowler which is available, along with other antiques, as an Oxford Language Classic. If you want to communicate, get this "Fowler's".

In Fowler's day, there was indeed a need for precision which Fowler fulfilled. This need remains, but more important is a need for justice and for fairness which excludes the very idea of speaking-for and deliberate exclusion. "

"Frankly I think this 3rd edition should be pulped. The 2nd edition was authoritative and prescriptive. If I want to hear or read how people speak now, I only need to refer to my graduate students. I don't think we need a book that validates the continuing decline of the language. "

"Fowler's Modern English Usage has served for nearly 80 years as the indispensable guide to anyone who wants to write clear and vigorous English. Nonetheless, 80 years is a long time to retain the word "modern" in the title of a book, and clearly the examples from newspapers of the first quarter of the 20th century have lost most of their currency, and even the examples from the literature of Fowler's period have aged as well. Clearly, therefore, some modernization was needed. This was partially achieved in the 2nd edition, edited by Ernest Gowers in 1965: Gowers did away with much of Fowler's idiosyncratic arrangement of his material, but he left most of the writing unchanged. Anyway, 1965 is also a long time ago, and much has changed since then.

A thorough rewriting was therefore probably needed, and there is much to admire in Burchfield's 3rd edition. If Fowler's book had never existed, and Burchfield's were the first of its kind, one might even praise it as an excellent reference. Unfortunately for Burchfield, however, Fowler's book did precede it, and it is impossible to read Burchfield on any topic without missing Fowler's way of handling the same topic. You may not agree with every opinion that Fowler expressed, but he never left you in any doubt about what he thought and why he thought it. Burchfield emerges as a wishy-washy committee man by comparison. Before undertaking the 3rd edition he was known for his excellent work on the Oxford English Dictionary, but compiling a dictionary is a very different business from writing a continuous piece of prose, and it is not obvious that skill in the one implies skill in the other. Gowers, incidentally, was known before he undertook the 2nd edition for his own books about clear writing. It would be an exaggeration to say that he single-handedly reformed the way that British civil servants write documents to be read by the general public, but he certainly made a large contribution to this.

Burchfield's book is not as bad as some critics maintain, and it has the merit of including many genuinely modern examples and of recognizing, as Fowler barely did, that English is a world language. It is worth having on your bookshelf, therefore, but not as a replacement for Fowler. For most people the edition of choice remains the 2nd edition -- easier to find your way around than the 1st edition, and retaining all of its force. It will not be surprising if Oxford decide in due course to reissue the 2nd edition, or, if that is too much of an admission of making a mistake, to issue a 4th edition that takes the 2nd as its starting point. At present it does not appear to be possible to buy a new copy of the 2nd edition, but it is not difficult to find a used copy.

Note added 19 August 2011. The publisher has indeed now reissued an earlier edition: not the 2nd, however, but the 1st, supplemented with an essay by David Crystal. I would have preferred the 2nd, but still it's an admission that the 3rd has not proved very popular. Caraculiambro's review of the reissue (entitled "they went back one too far") expresses my own thoughts very well. "

   
 
   
 
품절된 책 중 "오일러가...
미분적분학 솔루션 문의
Mathematica를 활용한 ...