By Geoffrey Pullum. A complimentary copy of a popular book on grammar appeared in my mailbox recently, with a personal note from the authors. They express firm agreement with views of mine that they had seen in Tom Chivers’s article about me, and they say they hope I’ll like their book. I wish I could respond positively. I don’t want to hurt the authors’ feelings, or condemn a well-intentioned project, or look a gift horse in the mouth. I wanted it to be good: I long to see a popular book on English grammar that gets the basic concepts at least broadly right. But this one just repeats the same old vague or incoherent descriptions that its predecessors have been offering for 200 years. More...

By Rose Jacobs. I’ve been working recently with a Romanian-German engineering student with business-school aspirations who is trying to improve his English writing skills. My student’s spoken English is excellent, and he can write fluently when talking about himself (in particular, about his rather impressive tennis career; the kid’s multitalented to say the least). But whenever he shows me a report, a formal letter, or a research paper, the work is a mess: The grammar falls apart under the weight of haphazardly constructed ideas. More...

By Geoffrey Pullum. In a post on May 19 I contrasted two cases of language use in the British newspapers recently: an objectionable word in an old record played by a DJ (he lost his job), and sexist remarks and attitudes expressed in office emails by a top executive (he wasn’t even disciplined by his board). More...