Oxford Modern English Grammar Illustrated Edition, Kindle Edition

Like others I find the organization of this book unnecessarily difficult, but more disappointing is the misinformation peppered throughout. A few examples (and sorry if this goes on a bit):---In 4.1.3.1.1 we learn that Direct Objects and their verbs "cannot generally be separated from each other":– Prosecutors stopped *immediately* the video– I deleted *without reason* it manually– A court in India postponed *legally* the release of a film entitled Hari Puttar– Tony likes *very much* films with lots of gratuitous violenceThis is textbook confirmation bias, a simple failure to look hard enough for disproving evidence:– Let's entertain *for a moment* the idea that verbs and their direct objects are not separable.– And try to find, *if we can, either by searching for them or just making them up,* examples in which this separation happens.– As it turns out, we can generate, *without much effort at all really,* an unlimited supply of counterexamples.---In the same section we're told that in some cases "the Direct Object can be omitted, but is implicit":– I'm reading."...the addressee will understand that I must be reading *something*."This confuses grammar and semantics. Yes, some sort of reading material is understood. That doesn't mean a direct object is. It's also understood that I'm reading "with my eyes," but there's no implicit prepositional phrase.Food is implied in both "I'm eating" and "I'm dining," but it doesn't follow that there are "implicit direct objects"—in the second sentence a direct object isn't possible! "I'm devouring" implies food too, but this sentence is ungrammatical if we try to leave the object "implicit."The correct analysis is that EAT, like READ, offers two contracts, transitive and intransitive, whereas DEVOUR is only transitive and DINE is only intransitive.---In section 4.1.3.1.4 we're told that "certain types of Direct Object, for example ... reflexive pronouns, cannot become the Subjects of passive clauses":– He scarcely knew himself > *Himself was scarcely known by himAbsurd. The correct passive, obviously, is "He was scarcely known by himself," but the book doesn't say so, weirdly implying that no passive formula is possible here.Of course the pronouns must change form to fit their new roles. The author performs part of this operation, changing "he" to "by him," but disingenuously fails to finish it: change "him(self)" to "he" and move the "-self" suffix to the later-occurring pronoun.Underlying this is a failure to model the reflexive pronouns appropriately. They are part of the morphology of ordinary pronouns, not an inflexible category of their own.---Similarly, 4.1.3.4.3 informs us that PPCs (prepositional phrase complements) cannot become the subjects of passive clauses:– You can refer to your notes whenever you need to > *To your notes can be referred by you whenever you need toThe passive of "You can refer to your notes," of course, is "Your notes can be referred to." Again the book doesn't mention the correct formula, weirdly implying that there isn't one. The particular claim here, that the *entire prepositional phrase* can't be moved to the subject, is true, but the implication that PPC constructions are difficult to make passive is not.Also, the situation is muddied here by another factor that makes passivification awkward. The "whenever you need to" qualifier requires "you" to be the subject of the sentence. This is grammatically interesting, but has nothing to do with the PPC construction; switch from PPC to Direct Object, and you get the same trouble:– You can consult your notes whenever you need to > *Your notes can be consulted whenever you need toThis brings up another problem with the book: almost all the example sentences are lifted from existing corpora. The idea is to ensure authenticity by analyzing real-world usage rather than deliberate constructions, but as a result even simple concepts are often illustrated by overly long examples with extraneous features that obfuscate the feature being discussed. Sometimes, as in this "refer to your notes" example, the author himself seems misled by the extra detail.

English grammar is not easy, so if you need to learn grammar or just improve your reading/writing skills, you need a really good course or book. You need to examine a lot of different options to make a good choice, but not all of them include morphology (nor syntax) which is a basic, and today's different grammar theories make it more difficult and confusing. The Oxford Modern English Grammar doesn't miss any basics, it's easy to understand, and it clears any possible confusion as you read, so you can learn grammar without a teacher. I do recommend this book!Touchito

Stunning book!~~~ Bas Aarts outdid himself here!~ Make sure you read Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar 2nd Edition by Bas Aarts before you start reading this book!~~~^^

Very detailed and accurate. Not a comic-like version. A classical grammar book. For middle-high schoolers as well as college students.

Samsung 4GB SODIMM 1333MHz 204-pin, M471B5273DH0-CH9

It is a well-done book.

Good grammar resource. Good for settling grammar questions in ESOL classrooms

Definitely not a prescriptive grammar. Excellent for linguists.

Oxford is the best.

Does what it's meant to

Oxford Modern English Grammar is very useful. For me this Grammar has become almost indispensable, speeding up my English, technical writing considerably. Highly recommended

Great reference book.

Great reference