A Dictionary of Modern American Usage

For three generations, a single book dominated the market as the authoritative reference in matters of grammar, style, and usage in the English language: "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage" by H.W. Fowler, first published in 1926, ably revised by Sir Ernest Gowers in 1965, and now in its third edition (published 1996). But by the century's last quarter, the modern English language -- particularly its American dialect -- had begun outgrowing Fowler, and several newer guides began competing with it. The third (1996) edition of Fowler was a disappointment, and left the field without a clear leading authority.

That gap was filled in 1998, when Bryan A. Garner wrote "A Dictionary of Modern American Usage" (published by the Oxford University Press, which also published Fowler). Finally, someone had written a book that matched Fowler -- not only in its erudition, but also in its accessible style, and even its wry sense of humor. And Garner's book had the advantages of being written both in modern times for a modern audience, and in the United States by an American author about American English. The book is a gem, and as authoritative a reference as you will find in this field in the last several decades (and probably the next several too).

"DMAU" went into a second edition in 2003, under the title "Garner's Modern American Usage," renamed after its author in view of the acclaim that the first edition earned. A new edition was appearing after only five years because, as Garner explains in the second edition, "changing usage isn't really the primary basis for a new edition of a usage guide: it's really a question of having had five more years for research." The second edition builds upon the first: the first edition was a dictionary of words in usage, rather than words about usage, and therefore assumed that the reader possessed a certain working knowledge of basic grammatical terms and concepts. For example, the first edition didn't define such basic terms as "sentence," "phrase," "clause," "word," or "part of speech." The second edition appends a glossary that defines many such basic concepts, in addition to many new or expanded entries in the dictionary itself.

Here's something that should make language lovers sit up and take notice: a thorough, gently entertaining but always informative book about the American language, written by a lawyer, in plain English.

For those who love the language, those who revere H.W. Fowler, John Bremner or Theodore Bernstein, but don't need the posturing or pomposity that sometimes accompanies columns or books on language, or those who simply enjoy wandering through the pages of a book that examines and comments upon commas, virgules, variants, Bryan A. Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage is the book to read.

Garner takes on all manner of problems, from the proper way to use the word each, to Hobson's Choice, to ordinance vs. ordnance and hundreds of other misuses and misunderstandings about American usage.

Most entries are quite short, as in the notation that "meld together" is a redundancy, while others, such as the entry on mendacity/mendicity/mendicancy, detail the distinctions that should be made in using these similar-sounding words. Most entries are accompanied by good, contemporary examples, but are sometimes explained through citations of older works.

The book is quite long,707 pages of entries in the hardcover edition, but worth the time of anyone who wants to brush up language skills, rediscover old rules, dispose of some other old rules, or broaden understanding of the differences between American and British usage.

Garner frequently cites newspapers and magazines when pointing out correct usage or mistakes, which makes the material fresh and relevant:

Comprise and compose: If the whole comprises the parts, the reverse can't be true, e.g., "Of the 50 stocks that comprise the index, 40 had gains...", From Florida Today, June 15, 1997.

In other words, comprise is not synonymous with "make up", no matter how many times people use it incorrectly.

extradite, indict, the former meaning to surrender or deliver a fugitive to another jurisdiction, the latter from the Latin to "write down" but some write as if the words are related, e.g., Ventura has a court hearing Thursday in San Juan, where she is expected to waive her right to fight extradiction (read extradition)..." From the Boston Herald, Oct.4, 1994.

and

Prosecutors argued that..he had jumped bail after a 1984 federal mail-fraud conviction and disappeared for nine years until being found and extradicted (read extradited)..." From The New York Times, Oct.7, 1994.

deceptive, deceptious. The latter is a needless variant. Or, if we have a perfectly good word, we don't need the invented alternative, which just causes readers to pause wonder about its meaning.

He also provides some useful definitions I've not encountered before, for example: dysphemism, the substitution of a disagreeable word or phrase for a neutral or even positive one. It is the opposite of euphemism. Some examples:
bean counter for accountant
jock for athlete
jarhead for Marine
bleeding heart for liberal
sawbones for surgeon
mouthpiece for lawyer
nerd for intellectual
stiff for cadaver
fascist for conservative

This book serves as a ready reference and a guide to those who love English. It's worth its hefty price.

Stick with his legal writing books, especially The Winning Brief and A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Here Garner bites off more than he can chew. (His legal writing seminars are well worth the cost.)

When I had to give up my office's copy, I bought my own. This is a superb resource for those who wish to use words with care.

Over the years I've collected dozens of books on writing and English usage. This book was a recent addition to the collection. I found the coverage of each language topic thorough; providing insight to a Canadian that lives in a schizophrenic world of English usage - caught between the Queen's English and that of America's.
My only complaint with this book was based solely on a stylistic issue rather than its content. Each entry tried to compress space by placing examples of good and bad usage directly inline with the author's commentary. I thought Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage did a better job in formatting its entries by clearly separating commentary from examples through the use of paragraphing and indentation.
Nevertheless, Garner's Modern American Usage book makes an excellent reference and a fun read.