NF

I felt like I was reading a monthly magazine column, i.e. the coherence wasn't as tight as maybe it could have been. On a chapter by chapter level, it was smooth and pleasant reading. ( )

Pretty good information on the English language. ( )

This book could not possibly not appeal to my confirmation bias. Disclosure: I've known for many years that Robert Lowth and his ilk are responsible for the unnecessary harm caused to grade school students all over the US - and probably elsewhere - when they tried to jam a Germanic language into Latin ... you can end a sentence in a preposition, have multiple negatives, and a host of other knuckle-rapping-thou-shalt-nots. Ms. O'Conner calls them out several times in this wonderful book. And much more.

Singular words that once were plural, plurals that were once singular, adverbs modifying whole sentences, origins of pronunciation, the drift between older modern British English (pre-19th century) and American English (turns out the New Englanders have been saying things right, with their dropped Rs...the Brits put them back in, ... and then lengthens their vowels (while doing their of dropping, syllabically that is.) She says "For one thing, we tend to use regular—and often older—past tenses (“burned,” “learned,” “spoiled,” “smelled”), while the British like irregular—and often newer—endings (“burnt,” “learnt,” “spoilt,” “smelt”). "

And grammar-Nazis abound, sometimes arguing both sides of the same infraction, because "English is often untidy, and we can find something in the disorder to support just about any position."

I like

It’s never been wrong to “split” an infinitive. That bogus rule is the most infamous member of a gang of myths that grammarians have been trying to rub out for a century and a half: Don’t end a sentence with a preposition! Don’t begin one with a conjunction! Don’t use a double negative! Don’t use “none” as a plural! Many of these don’ts were concocted in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by overzealous Latinists in a misguided attempt to force English to play by the rules of Latin.

Yes!! Ms. O'Conner puts to bed peeves of mine, such as

The singular “octopus” comes from Greek and means eight-footed. The original plural, “octopodes,” was Anglicized over the years to “octopuses.” But in the mid-1800s some misguided Latinists (at it again!) tried to substitute the Latin plural ending -pi for the Greek -podes. It was an illegitimate idea that appealed to would-be pedants with weak classical educations.

I did learn a few things...

A lot of hot air has also been expended over “bloviate,” which the word police regard as an ugly newcomer. But the word actually originated in mid-nineteenth century Ohio, when it meant what it means today—to blather on pompously. It’s one of those humorous mock-Latin formations (like “absquatulate,” “discombobulate,” and others), and it blew in around the same time as “bloviator” and “blowhard.”

So Bill O'Reilly, Tucker Carlson, well...the whole "News"Channel entertainment cast, that apt term is more than 150 years old, as if anticipating you!

And, a new one for me, "A mondegreen is a misunderstanding in which a familiar song lyric, bit of poetry, or popular expression is misinterpreted or misheard." Now I know what to call the " 'Scuse Me While I Kiss This Guy" unfortunate.

Anyway, now I want to read her other books. ( )

If you love language, you'll likely enjoy this book and the dry, gently humor it utilizes to explain word etymologies and controversies. I like how it used citations and quotes to back-up its corrective claims. The book is a bit dated by now, mostly due to the humorous references (iPods are soooo last decade), but the information remains solid. At least, for a few more decades. As the book points out more than once, English is a democratic and oft-evolving language. ( )