American Usage and Style: The Consensus by

Roy H. Copperud
 Download audio book.

Original Title: American Usage and Style

ISBN: 0442249063
ISBN13: 9780442249069
Autor: Roy H. Copperud
Rating: 4.5 of 5 stars (792) counts
Original Format: Paperback, 0 pages
Download Format: PDF, RTF, ePub, CHM, MP3.
Published: May 1st 1982 / by Van Nostrand Reinhold Company
Language: English
Genre(s):

Description:

About Author:
Other Editions:

Books By Author:

- Editing the News

Books In The Series:

Related Books On Our Site:

Rewiews:

Feb 02, 2012

Bridgette Redman
Rated it: liked it
I decided early on in life that I wanted to be a writer, or at least a journalist. I was editor of the
junior high newspaper and the journalism advisor was a very encouraging and supportive woman.
Also, my father is a journalist and I have always admired his contribution to his community.
I fell in love with writing long before junior high though. My first story, dictated to and recorded by
my mom, was devised when I was 4. It was titled Judy and the 3 Bears. My titles then, as now,
were slightly
I decided early on in life that I wanted to be a writer, or at least a journalist. I was editor of the
junior high newspaper and the journalism advisor was a very encouraging and supportive woman.
Also, my father is a journalist and I have always admired his contribution to his community.
I fell in love with writing long before junior high though. My first story, dictated to and recorded by
my mom, was devised when I was 4. It was titled Judy and the 3 Bears. My titles then, as now,
were slightly lacking in originality.
Fast forward to ninth grade. It was the last week of school before going on to high school. My
journalism advisor (who was also the typing teacher) presented me with a retirement gift. It was a
copy of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. Twenty years later, Im still using that book
and it is one of the four books I use most often when writing.
So I came to this review ready to rave and tell you what a valuable, must-have resource this book
is. Indeed, copies of this book sit on the shelves of the majority of the editors in my workplace. But
in the interest of giving a more detailed review, I decided to give American Usage and Style a
closer read. For the past 20 years, I've used it as a reference to look things up as I had questions,
not as straight reading material. In re-reading it, my rating began to drop and I discovered things
that have slipped past my notice. Its been 21 years since the book was written. Language
changes and this book is victim to that fact.
The Premise
What makes this style guide different from other style guides? First is that it ostensibly attempts to
present the differing viewpoints of several grammarians. There have been many editorials here on
Epinions that talk about the rules of grammar as if they were immutable commands etched in
stone. Yet those people who devote their lives to the study of grammar rarely agree with each
other on all of the so-called rules. Ultimately, the goal of language is to communicate and the rules
of grammar must bend to that goal.
In the preface to the book, Roy Copperud, the author and editor of this book, states:
Dictionaries of usage often disagree, but they have one quality in common: presumption. It could
not be otherwise, for the authors are saying to the reader, I know best. Yet correct usage,
whatever that may be, is not a matter of revealed truth, but oftener than not reflects taste or
opinion. Such books cast a wide net. Their judgments cover common errors in grammar,
misapprehensions of the meanings of words, and the acceptability of changed meanings, to name
their principal concerns. The implication is that the critic is reflecting the preponderance of
educated practice. But this is not necessarily so, or there would be more agreement among the
authorities.
Copperud consolidated several style books and usage guides. He then compared those guides to
the following works:
The Careful Writer by Theodore Bernstein
Current American Usage by Margaret Bryant
Dictionary of Usage and Style by Roy Copperud
A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage by Bergen and Cornelia Evans
The ABC of Style by Rudolf Flesch
Modern American Usage by Wilson Follett and others
A Dictionary of Modern English Usage by H.W. Fowler, Second edition
Encyclopedic Dictionary of English Usage by Mager and Mager
Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage by William and Mary Morris
Websters New International Dictionary, Third edition
Random House Dictionary of the English Language
Oxford English Dictionary
and several other dictionaries.
Each entry compares all authorities that discuss the particular word or grammatical point. If there
is only one opinion, Copperud claims, it is because all the authorities agreed on the point.
The Format
The book is set up as a typical style guide with dictionary-type entries. There is extensive cross-
referencing, so that the person looking up blood, sweat, and tears is sent to the Misquotation
entry.
There is a bibliography at the end of the book, listing all of the references used throughout as well
as style guides for the further edification of the reader.
Points on Grammar
One of the clients for whom I write insists that no sentence end in a preposition because his
grammar school English teacher told him so. And no evidence to the contrary can shake that
paragons words. As a professional writer, I know from whence my bread is buttered, so I write as
Im told rather than as I believe to be most effective.
However, occasionally a client can be persuaded (or I can write for my own purposes) and
Copperuds guide can be a big help. It includes entries on grammar such as this one on ending
sentences in prepositions (Ive excerpted it, the full entry is actually much longer):
The notion that it is wrong, or undesirable, to end a sentence with a preposition has been derided
by Fowler and many another authority on language. The most telling blow was struck by Sir
Winston Churchill, who, when accused of ending a sentence with a preposition, is said to have
replied: This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put.
You can show that sentences with the preposition at the end are more forceful than those that
have been recast to avoid it; you can cite masters of English prose from Chaucer to Churchill who
employ end prepositions freely and consciously; and you can prove that such usage is established
literary English, but the superstitious will still wince at it.
In writing, as distinguished from rule-reciting, the avoidance of the end preposition is more evident,
perhaps, in structural detours that start with a preposition followed by which. Few care about
making the world a better place to live in, but nearly everyone wants to make it a better place in
which to live. The car she was riding in after editing with zeal and ignorance, becomes The car
in which she was riding.
The use of circumlocution to find another place than the end for the preposition not only weakens
the sentence, but gives it a stilted soundAvoidance of the preposition at the end came from
applying Latin rules of grammar to English. In Latin, it is all but impossible to place a preposition
after its object. Linguists now, however, have decided that the rules of one language make a
Procrustean bed for another.
Copperud addresses the use of hyphens, repeating the quote by John Benbow of Oxford
University Press, who said, If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad. He then
devotes three pages to the different ways to hyphenate words, telling us finally that when it doubt,
use the dictionary.
These are just a few examples of the many grammatical issues that are addressed in the book.
There are also explanations on comma use, modifier placement, and verb agreement, among
many other topics.
The Words
Quick, do you know the difference between blond and blonde? How about filet and fillet?
Proportional and proportionate? Strategy and tactics? Flier and flyer?
If you dont, you could easily look them up in this guide, which will explain such things as that
blonde should be reserved for women and blond can be used of either gender.
Are you convinced that aint aint a word? Copperud writes, One critic calls aint illiterate and
another nonstandard. Three critics regret that it is not acceptable for am not, since there is no
other contraction for this form; one critic and American Heritage deplore arent I but Fowler calls it
colloquially respectable, reflecting a difference between British and American usage that is
corroborated by EvansThe fact is that aint is sometimes boldly used in writing by those who are
sure of themselves, though most readers are likely to consider it the hallmark of the uneducated.
This guide will even tell you why grammarians cringe at Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, as the
term drunken is the preferred term even if it sounds quaint and the word drunk is winning
acceptance.
Theres even a detailed discussion on you-all and when it is appropriate, whether it is singular or
plural, and where the term is most likely to be used.
Copperud doesnt limit the usage discussions to mere single phrases though. There is an entire,
wonderful entry on misquotations. For instance it should be all that glisters is not gold instead of
glistens or glitters. The phrase blood, sweat, and tears was originally blood, toil, tears, and sweat.
No one is to the manor born, at least, not if the person using the phrase is trying to quote Hamlet.
Then they are to the manner born.
In all, there are some 432 pages that detail how our language is used and abused.
The Flaws
So, after listing all those wonderful features of the book, why am I newly disillusioned with it? In
the 20 years that Ive used it, it has become outdated. Many of the injunctions are no longer valid
and the battles are long since lost.
More importantly, Copperud has a definite bias and a subtle sexism that appears throughout his
work. If there is a phrase that he dislikes (such as using most when almost is intended), he calls it
schoolgirlish. He attributes the entire discussion of the use of he as a third-person singular
whether the referent is male or female as a foolish issue raised only by whiney feminists.
He has an entry on feminism that is offensive and condescending in the extreme. He starts it out
with Feminists appear to be getting more and more worked up over the tendency to apply
apparently masculine designations to women or mixed groups. Rather than acknowledge a
legitimate linguistic question, he attributes it to the emotionalism of a group of radical women. For
a man who has made language his expertise, he uses very inflammatory phrases such as seems
inevitable that some pretentious ass will suggest displacing or most obnoxious of these toadying
expressions and brace ourselves against the inevitable complaint to refer to examples that are
in actuality legitimate areas of concern.
He gives an example, Everyone knows he is mortal and goes on to say, It is doubtful that readers,
apart from feminists searching for suggestions of discrimination think in masculine terms in
reading statements like this. Sociological studies done with young children have since proven him
false.
Copperud uses absurd examples to make his point, saying that feminists want to replace mankind
with personkind and waitress with waitperson. Most thoughtful people in search of gender-neutral
language would use humanity or server for those phases, but Copperud refuses to include any
logical or reasonable alternative to traditionally male phrases. Instead he says all of them have
been justly scorned.
In another entry, he says the plural pronoun is commonly used over the masculine form alone in
speech but that it is questionable in writing. He says the use of he or she is clumsy and
unnecessary, as are other inclusive forms. It is a well-established convention that the masculine
form alone is taken as applying to both sexes, he writes. It may have been a well-established
convention, but it no longer is and its longevity is not sufficient reason for it to stand unchallenged.
Finally, for the most part, he breaks his own rules when it comes to the topic of gender in
language. It is a topic he feels so vehemently about that he does not give the other critics equal
opportunity in the entries, quoting only dictionaries and outlandish statements in early feminist
literature. Im willing to make some allowances for Copperuds views. He was born in 1915 and his
statements represent the prevailing view of the times. However, what he writes remains offensive
to the modern eye, especially when he concludes with such condescending statements as We
are on dangerous ground, for William Congreve recorded truly three centuries ago that hell has no
fury like a woman scorned, and as is well known this is no less true if she only thinks she has been
scorned or even slighted.
The Use
The mere copyright on this book forces the rating on this book to drop from five dots to three, yet
there is still no other book in publication that does as thorough and complete a job of comparing
the experts as this one does. So, I would recommend it to writers who want to strengthen their
prose and to editors who are bracing the shield wall against the pikes of imprecision. It is still one
of the best reference books of its kind and it is fascinating to read how some of the phrases have
evolved and read the various sides of grammatical debates.
But I would also warn each person using this reference to read it with a very critical eye. Do not
accept unquestioning the mandates of this book. Rather return to Copperuds original warning that
even a consensus of usage is presumptuous and suspect. Use the information to understand the
debates and stylistic concerns. Let it be just one factor in your determination of what is right and
what is not. Your decisions, even if they disagree with the experts, will at least have been arrived
at with careful consideration and thought.
Happy writing!