The Dictionary of Disagreeable English: A Curmudgeon's Compendium of Excruciatingly Correct Grammar

However curmudgeonly, Mr. Fiske betrays a bluff humanitarian spirit. ... [Fiske] wants to save [the English language]. And he knows that he can count on little help. Dictionaries "have virtually no standards, offer scant guidance, and advance only misunderstanding." His own flogging of Merriam-Webster's is one of the many pleasures of this lovely, sour, virtuous book. -- Wall Street Journal (For) people who get a delicious kick out of getting incensed at loosey-goosey usage. -- William Safire, New York Times I recently purchased your Dictionary of Disagreeable English, a delightful little book with a somewhat depressing, big message. I find myself chuckling from page to page. Thanks for the entertainment! -- Teresa Jones We will continue to look to you for guidance and help in preserving the elegance of the English language. -- Christel Marin Please accept my congratulations on a wonderful and very useful book. -- Frank Boccia I'm enjoying the heck out of Disagreeable English. -- Ron Harris As a technical writer, I consult your Dictionary of Disagreeable English often, to "insure" that my documents don't fall "pray" to lazy language. -- Tristan MacAvery The Dictionary of Disagreeable English was one of my favorite Christmas presents this season. -- Ralph Shelton This reference book is excellent! Thank you, Robert Hartwell Fiske. -- Gary B. Larson As Fiske illustrates in his book, dictionaries are not what they used to be. Prominent dictionaries, including the vaunted Merriam Webster, have increasingly resorted to including nonstandard English, i.e. improper English, in their texts, all in the name of recording English as it is used, rather than how it should be used. Fiske attacks this concept of "descriptivist" as inexcusable. Although I admit that English does evolve, I am firmly in Fiske's camp -- dictionaries should champion proper English, not popular English. After reading this book, you may find yourself taking up arms in Fiske's war as well. ... In The Dictionary of Disagreeable English, Fiske has compiled a rogue's gallery of painfully incorrect English. If you love acerbic sarcasm, you're in for a treat. Fiske's acidic commentary is frequently laugh out loud funny, as are the truly hideous examples of murdered grammar which Fiske has culled from journalists, celebrities, and politicians. As much fun as this book is to read, The Dictionary of Disagreeable English is also a handy, informative guide to avoiding the most common grammatical pitfalls. Fiske lists frequent misspellings, misuses (my favorite being "grisly" for "grizzly"), mispronunciations, and non existent words which are used with alarming frequency. ... If you are a fellow grammar geek/word nerd, you will adore this book. You will laugh at Fiske's biting wit and you will cry at some of the most foul atrocities that were committed against the English language in the examples provided. The Dictionary of Disagreeable English is the perfect way to both amuse a

I find the prospect of reviewing "The Dictionary of Disagreeable English: A Curmudgeon's Compendium of Excruciatingly Correct Grammar," by Robert Hartwell Fiske, intimidating. However painful it would be to be the object of his scorn, however, it's undeniably entertaining to see him take others to task. The "Dictionary" starts off with a lovely rant about "The Decline of the Dictionary," in which Mr. Fiske bemoans the fact that so many dictionaries attempt to describe current usage, incorporating incorrect grammar and spelling, rather than setting down proper usage. He rips into Merriam-Webster with a long list of examples of "inexcusably shoddy dictionary making," including the addition of "tho" as a variant spelling of "though" and the pronouncement that "flaunt" means the same as "flout" or "infer" means the same as "imply." Most of the book consists of a dictionary of misused, misspelled, and mispronounced words. Some of them surprised me; I was a little shocked to find out that, for example, people often misuse "accelerate" in place of "exhilarate." Other entries made me cringe when I realized I'd been misusing them myself; I can't remember any examples at the moment--I suspect I've blocked them out so as to spare myself the embarrassment of having to recount them in this review. It would be enough to have this wonderfully useful dictionary at hand. I certainly plan to keep my copy near to where I work, so I can hopefully reduce the amount of "disagreeable English" to be found in my own writing. The book is made all the more entertaining, however, through the use of boxed examples from real writers' and speakers' work, always presented with an entertaining cartoon of a frustrated or exasperated "grammar curmudgeon." The book is very recent--it was published in 2005--and it uses up-to-date examples that will appeal to the modern reader. The only mild negative I can think of is that occasionally I wished for a little more clarification when two terms seemed very similar in meaning. The format typically consists of examples of the misusage, followed by an explanation of the differences between the words involved. Some of these entries would have benefited from further examples of the correct usage of the words in question. This book is just plain fun for grammar curmudgeons and invaluable for those with imperfect grammar.

Robert Hartwell Fisk definitely warrants his (self-described?) label of curmudgeon; and I say that with great admiration. If you have a long list of grammatical pet peeves, his Dictionary of Disagreeable English will furnish you with an entertaining source for putting people right. If you couldn't care less about precise English, don't bother. But if you appreciate the appropriateness of "couldn't" as opposed to the ghastly "could care less" that has become so common today, then buy this book in quantity and give it to all of your friends! It is a bit intimidating to write a review of this book, as there is the fear of provoking a mild (or worse) response from the author regarding errors within the review, however I will try. Fisk provides evidence of errors that range from common misspellings and mispronunciations to such flagrant misuse of words that their meanings are completely distorted. I was gratified to find the a number of words and phrases that rank among my linguistic pet peeves, and I was shocked to discover too many errors of my own usage. Mr. Fisk chooses his targets carefully, with wit and sarcasm -[...]- such that you can't help but lose time moving from one entry to the next. He provides examples of each mistaken use, followed by a suggestion that would make the sentence more precise. Interestingly enough, he does not appear to favor a return to the language of the Victorians. He readily acknowledges that English is a living language, and he even makes a few allowances for the "creative" use of words by some technical disciplines. Nonetheless he loudly denounces what I might call Dilbertarian business-speak at every opportunity. He even coins a new word of his own, "lexicographers" to refer to dictionaries and editors that are all to willing to bend to the noise of popular vocabulary, at the expense of clear communication. Congratulations Mr. Fisk! Fight on... and fight well!

From the Introduction A catalog of confusions Lexicographers are descriptivists, language liberals. The use of "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" does not displease a descriptivist. A prescriptivist, by contrast, is a language conservative, a person interested in maintaining standards and correctness in language use. To prescriptivists, "disinterested" in the sense of "uninterested" is the mark of uneducated people who do not know the distinction between the two words. And if there are enough uneducated people saying "disinterested" (and I'm afraid there are) when they mean "uninterested" or "indifferent," lexicographers enter the definition into their dictionaries. Indeed, the distinction between these words has all but vanished owing largely to irresponsible writers and boneless lexicographers. Words, we are told, with the most citations are included in the Merriam-Webster dictionaries. Are then words with the fewest omitted, or in danger of being omitted? Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary includes "alright," but what word was not included so that an inanity, an illiteracy like "alright" could be kept in? "Boeotian" is not defined in Merriam-Webster's; nor is "diaskeuast" defined; nor "logogogue"; nor "nyctophobia"; nor "myriadigamous"; nor "ubiety"; nor "womanfully"; nor hundreds of other words that a college student might find infinitely more useful than the entry, the misspelling and definition of, "alright." All it takes for a solecism to become standard English is people misusing or misspelling the word. And if enough people do so, lexicographers will enter the originally misused or misspelled word into their dictionaries, and descriptive linguists will embrace it as a further example of the evolution of English. Merriam-Webster's laxicographers, further disaffecting careful writers and speakers, assign the meaning "reluctant" to the definition of "reticent." "Reticent" means disinclined to speak; taciturn; quiet. "Reluctant" means disinclined to do something; unwilling; loath. Because some people mistakenly use "reticent" to mean "reluctant," dictionaries now maintain "reticent" does mean "reluctant." Ignominies of Grammar and Usage * abberation Misspelling of aberration. * New employment data Friday will either corroborate recent evidence showing the economy is improving, or indicate that last month's job gain was an abberation. USE aberration. * Hedman had been a player in search of one, redemptive moment that would grant him forgiveness in the eyes of the fans after his abberation in Munich. USE aberration. Abberation is how aberrant users of the English language spell aberration. The language has its deviants, its descriptive linguists, its dictionary makers. * enervate Solecistic for energize (or similar words). * Even the hurricanes, the torrential downpours, skies solid black with furious clouds, could do nothing but enervate and invigorate me. USE energize. * Fashion is photography's Frankenstein monste