Dictionary of Confusable Words - Hardcover

Like Laurence Urdang's The Dictionary of Confusable Words (1988), Room's new work considers pairs and sets of words that are subject to uncertainty in the minds of even native speakers of English. Room takes confusables such as correspondent /co-respondent , mold /mil dew, and quiet /quiescent and clearly and succinctly explains how they differ. In this modus operandi (which, incidentally, Room distinguishes from modus vivendi ) the author mirrors Urdang. However, Room also provides an example of each confusable in a plausible sentence.The books overlap even while each includes words the other omits. Turn to Urdang for cray fish/shrimp /lobster /krill , initiative /referendum /recall , or symphony /concerto , none of which find room in Room. Along with their differences in word stock, they differ in access methods. Urdang provides an index, whereas Room achieves the same result by using see references to guide readers to words that fall in the latter part of an entry heading. In short, libraries, writers, and others will find both useful because sometimes one will do but the other won't.The most significant difference between the two is Urdang's selection of entries that touch on usage more than meaning. These include his disquisitions on either . . . or /neither . . . nor and lie /lay , topics also addressed in The Penguin Dictio nary of American English Usage and Style, a book with a broader purpose that embraces a lengthy entry explaining the differences between the elements of "Confusing Pairs." Lovinger, a journalist and freelance writer, has written this dictionary as a reference for writers and as a textbook that would-be careful writers can read to their benefit. Using the unimpeachable touchstone of clarity, his highly readable entries explain why a certain expression or usage is superior to alternatives. His article on only and how to place it properly among other words to convey one's intended meaning exemplifies this value. Furthermore, he provides context and foundation for his explanations. For example, the technicalities in the expression between you and I will make sense to the uninformed if they follow the helpful see also reference to the lengthy article explaining prepositions, their history, their use, etc. He provides similar background articles for other parts of speech. Even with these, however, some of his terminology (e.g., restrictive clauses ) might be meaningless to readers who have not been schooled in traditional grammar.Lovinger cites numerous examples to make and buttress his points, drawing many of these from newspaper articles. These tend to illustrate practices to avoid. In his commentary on these quotes, he can sometimes come across as a bit of a curmudgeon, as, for example, when he castigates reporters who use remap as a synonym for reapportion . (He does allow for it in headlines, however, in recognition of its economy.)The Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style is not the first guide to address American usage in the way that Fowler's classic Dictionary of Modern English Usage addressed British usage of the English language. It is a worthy addition to their ranks. Whether one prefers it to Kenneth Wilson's Columbia Guide to Standard Amer ican English (1993), Bryan Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage [RBB F 15 99], or another similar resource will depend mostly on familiarity or personal preference. All are helpful and useful. REVWR
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved