Buy Used
£10.46
+ £2.80 UK delivery
Used: Good | Details
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: SHIPS FROM USA: PLEASE ALLOW 10 to 21 BUSINESS DAYS FOR DELIVERY. Good condition. Text is clean and unmarked! Shelf wear from storage, spine is slightly cracked. Has a small black line on bottom/exterior edge of pages. Tracking is not available for orders shipped outside of the United States.
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See all 2 images

Fowler's Modern English Usage (Re-Revised 3rd Edition) Hardcover – 23 Sep 2004

3.9 out of 5 stars 35 customer reviews

See all 11 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price
New from Used from
Hardcover, 23 Sep 2004
£65.92 £10.46

There is a newer edition of this item:


Are You an Author Looking to Publish Your Book?
It's Free, Fast, and Easy to Publish to Kindle, Print and Audio with Amazon Independent Publishing Learn more
click to open popover

Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone

To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.



Product details

  • Hardcover: 896 pages
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press; Re-Revised 3rd edition (23 Sept. 2004)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0198610211
  • ISBN-13: 978-0198610212
  • Product Dimensions: 21.8 x 4.6 x 14.2 cm
  • Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (35 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 442,120 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • See Complete Table of Contents

Product Description

Review

[Fowler's Modern English Usage] offers impeccable advice. (The Times)

About the Author

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).


Customer Reviews

3.9 out of 5 stars
Share your thoughts with other customers

Top Customer Reviews

Format: Hardcover
Unlike the second edition of this venerable classic, this, the third, is thoroughly revised and brought up to date by R. W. Burchfield whose distinguished credentials include having been the Chief Editor of the Oxford English dictionaries from 1971 to 1984 and an editor of the Cambridge History of the English Language. The problem is that in doing so he has greatly lessened the prescriptive intent of Mr. Fowler and offended many readers.
Let's begin with the Preface in which he has the temerity of damning H.W. Fowler himself with faint praise and something close to dismissal. Burchfield asks: "Why has this schoolmasterly, quixotic, idiosyncratic, and somewhat vulnerable book...retained its hold on the imagination of all but professional linguistic scholars for just on seventy years?" (p. ix) One gets the sense that Burchfield is going to straighten matters out forthwith. He adds, "Fowler's name remains on the title-page, even though his book has been largely rewritten..." In the next sentence he refers to Fowler's book as a "masterpiece," but adds that "it is a fossil all the same" while intimating that its scholarly scope did not extend beyond "the southern counties of England in the first quarter of the twentieth century." (p. xi)
From there we go to the entries themselves and find on page one that the suffix "-a" is now
being printed more and more to present the sound that replaces "of" in rapid (esp. demotic) speech, as in "kinda" (=kind of), loadsa, sorta.
The problem with this is there is no acknowledgment that such usage, especially in written English, is substandard. Even in the entry on "demotic English," Burchfield merely notes that such formulations as "gotta," "shoulda," etc. are becoming more common.
Read more ›
6 Comments 184 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Hardcover
Fans of Fowler will be greatly disappointed by this book, which seems to include nothing written by Fowler, but displays his name in large letters on the spine and cover. Burchfield admits in the preface that he does not understand Fowler's appeal, and does not even like his work: "The mystery remains: why has this schoolmasterly, quixotic, idiosyncratic, and somewhat vulnerable book, in a form only lightly revised once, in 1965, by Ernest Gowers, retained its hold on the imagination of all but professional linguistic scholars for just on seventy years?" The answer to this question, I think, can be found in the how Burchfield and Fowler advise the reader on whether to put the period inside or outside of quotation marks. Burchfield begins with a wimpy "each system has its own merit", and proceeds to an absolute rule: Quotation marks "must be placed according to the sense". Even Garner (A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, a far better book for American readers), who has great praise for Fowler, simply sets out conventional American and British usage. Only Fowler provides an analytical structure ("There are two schools of thought, which might be called the conventional and the logical") and then through clear thinking and perceptive example persuades us that "The conventional system flouts common sense, and it is not easy for the plain man to see what merit it is supposed to have to outweigh that defect". Persuasion is the element that Burchfield and other writers lack.Read more ›
Comment 63 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Hardcover
I have read the original and second edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage and they have the true essence of Fowler in them. This book, however, contains very little of Fowler's original work and views on English usage and might as well have been called Burchfield's English Usage as it is clear that he, in editing this book, has taken out all of the things which made Fowler the best English usage book, and added in his own views on the matters. He has simply used the good name of Fowler to put forward his own grammatical rules, which are not a patch on Fowler's, resulting in a very poor book. If you want the true Fowler, and I recommend it, then buy the first or second edition. They may be slightly outdated, but are far better than this book.
Comment 111 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Hardcover
Being British, I never suffered any lack of confidence with using English until I moved abroad. Then suddenley I was buried beneath a landslide of both technical and non-technical questions regarding "correct" English which required more than "intuitive" answers. On holiday back in England, Fowler's was recommended to me, but on first glance it looked stuffy and old so I bought the Penguin "Longman Guide to English Usage". Sadly - the Penguin book turned out to be next to useless, so I bought Fowler's on my next trip home. It is now my best reference source after a comprehensive dictionary. The book is laid out like a dictionary, with words and phrases in alphabetical order. It concentrates on words,phrases,endings, and other grammatical items which are often mis-used or forgotten. The entries try to give an explanation of correct usage, including origins of current use (and abuse). It can be a little difficult to follow sometimes, and it doesn't have EVERYTHING in it, but it's the best book of it's kind I've found so far (and I've looked at many). It's particularly useful on matters of English purism - e.g. traditional English English vs. American English, use of "that" vs. "which", "enquiry" vs. "inquiry" etc. I would certainly recommend it to those who are interested enough to want to understand the finer details of English writing.
Comment 62 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse


Feedback