Discussion Groups / ESL Teaching / September 2006

Hm...Owain, this smells like a trick response to trap a posturing
colonial.

According to a book I have on my shelf:

In two separate granite cottages, fifty yard apart, the brothers
embarked on and completed three ambitious projects. First, they
translated the Greek works of Lucian of Samosota (1905); then they
wrote "The King's English" (1906), the precursor of "MEU", and compiled
"The Concise Oxford Dictionary" (1911). After an adverturous interlude
in the army in France in 1915-1916, and after the death of his brother
in 1918, Fowler finished  "The Pocket Oxford Dictionary" in 1924, and
MEU in 1926, by which time he was sixty-eight.

---------------------------

That would be from: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, Revised
third edition (also known as MEU 3), by R.W. Burchfield, Oxford
University Press, 1998.

This is the primary book review on Amazon.com for "The King's English,"
the book you're talking about.

27 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

Prequel to Fowler's "Dictionary of Modern English Usage", December 6,
2001
Reviewer: Brian Melendez (Minneapolis, MN United States) - See all my
reviews

If you liked "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage," you will love "The
King's English."
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, now in its third edition (published
1996). Twenty years earlier, however, Fowler and his younger brother
F.G. (their given names were Henry Watson and Francis George) had
collaborated on a precursor, "The King's English," first published in
1906 (and which went into its third edition a quarter century later, a
few years after the first edition of "A Dictionary" appeared).

This book is every bit as charming and graceful as the later
"Dictionary" and, while this earlier work covers fewer topics than
"Dictionary," it treats the ones that it does cover with as much
thoroughness and skill as "Dictionary"--in some cases with more
thoroughness, since the book is structured as part essay, part
textbook, and can thus afford more examples and exercises than
"Dictionary." The book begins by laying out five "general principles"
worthy of Strunk and White (whose masterpiece "The Elements of Style"
did not appear until half a century later): "Prefer the familiar word
to the far-fetched. Prefer the concrete word to the abstract. Prefer
the single word to the circumlocution. Prefer the short word to the
long. Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance."

The Fowlers expand upon those five "principles," and also treat
vocabulary, syntax, punctuation, and other such technical matters in
great depth. But amidst these technical chapters they also include a
lengthy chapter on "airs and graces," in which they advise the reader
about imbuing writing with art.

The Fowlers write with every bit as much elegance, flair, and humor as
they advise their readers to use, and their mastery of their subject is
unsurpassed. "The King's English" has stood the test of time and,
today, a century after its initial publication, it still stands the
Fowler brothers with Strunk and White from half a century ago and Bryan
Garner of today in the first rank of authors about style and usage in
the English language.

-----------------------------------------------

Yes, you can also buy a used copy of a reprinted third edition of "The
King's English," third edition, for 96 cents on Amazon.

On the other hand, the reference guide in the post quoted was first
published about seventy years later and has been out of print for quite
some time. I had to scour bibliophile.com for it.

As my post to Dan makes clear, I actually once had a copy of "A
Writer's Handbook." Its ashes are somewhere in a landfill in upstate
New York. The day I toss Fowler is the day I decide to give up teaching
English.

In conclusion, while all Americans are equal, and some are more equal
than others, Napoleon's squealing has pushed my damned buttons.

--------------

Holy schmoly. Dan, it's August in Athens and it is HOT. I'm grumpy.
Perhaps I shouldn't have put it that way.

But calling me sadly confused and accusing me of a lack of
conscience...now that's just beyond the pale. I feel provoked, so it's
time to explain precisely why "Tango 101" does not exist.

In the traditional American university system, number suffixes refer to
the registration listing of the school. In the SUNY system, where I got
my BA, we used this system, and I am intimately familiar with it.

100-level classes were by and large for freshmen. They consisted of
elementary-level, introductory classes to specific areas of the
subject.

For instance, English 131, at SUNYCAB (Buffalo State College), was
Medieval Literature.

200-levels were for sophomores

300-levels were for juniors

400-levels, seniors.

500- and 600-level classes are for graduate students, although
undergraduates can often register for them.

Now, anyone can take any classes if they are not restricted to students
who have successfully passed a specified introductory-level class in
the academic discipline (300 and 400-levels are usually restricted).
The numbers are just a rough guide, nowadays.

Generally speaking, the two most important 100-level classes for each
discipline are the "100" class and the "101" class. The 100 class is
for people not planning to major in the discipline. the 101 is for
people who plan on making that discipline their major.

In my undergraduate major, English Language and Literature, we had:

English 100 (for people looking for a very general introduction to
English Studies, usually to fulfill a General Education requirement).

English 101 (for anyone who was seriously thinking about majoring in
English).

This is the way 100 and 101 classes work in every major. The academic
discipline itself holds the 100 and 101 level classes, not any
specialization within the discipline. They are general-purpose classes.
So you'll find Mathematics 101, Biology 101, Journalism 101 and
Philosophy 101 in college catalogues, not Differential Calculus 101,
Crustacean Digestion 101, Newspaper Ethics 101 and First-Order Logic
101.

I should mention that many American universities have abandoned this
traditional system. At Brown, where I did my graduate work, the
administration had a 2-digit system and felt that the old system was
little more than a dinosaur.

Now Dan, can you conceive of and locate an accredited American
university or college that is traditional enough to use the traditional
American system AND is radical enough to have an independent Tango
department? Not a Dance department, remember, but a TANGO department.
It's ridiculous, but even so...

There are approximately 3,500 US colleges and universities, so let me
get you started. You need to go to www.petersons.com and do a
CollegeQuest search, JUST LIKE I DID BEFORE I POSTED. Amateur hour is
over, Dan.

Judging from your reference book, you obviously took an introductory
creative writing class back in college. In point of fact, at SUNY
Oswego, where I did such a class under a really bright guy named Robert
O'Conner, he recommended the same damned book and I bought it. You're
not exactly hefting a definitive guide there, Dan my man. And you
didn't even know the name of the publisher? Don't tell me "Shuster" was
an honest typo, Dan. That dog won't hunt.

So what is it, Dan? You proudly asserted that Tango 101 might exist,
which means that you probably didn't spend all that much time in
college. You're citing a third-rate reference book that is hopelessly
outdated. And, if you speak English as a first language, which I cannot
believe that you do not, you do know that Einde's answer was absolutely
correct and in THE SEARCH TO PROVE THAT DAN IS ALWAYS RIGHT are
insisting that you didn't step on your crank. What gives?

I often feel I have assumed the crown (or the dunce cap) of Chief MELE
Jester Jerk by default: do you really want to take my title away from
me? Feel free...but please stop stepping on your crank!