In Love With Norma Loquendi [Hardcover]

William Safire (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 2, 1996

The Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist describes his lifelong fascination with Norma Loquendi--common speech--in a collection of columns that celebrates the mysteries and continual evolution of the English language. 15,000 first printing.

--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

This latest collection of Safire's (Quoth the Maven, LJ 8/93) internationally syndicated columns on language will appeal to language buffs and mavens. How did it come to be that one kind of bubba dispenses chicken soup while another is a Southern football player? What does it mean to "cock a snook"? In the language of diplomacy, how do contact, dialogue, and exchange differ? Though a political conservative, Safire is a linguistic liberal, accepting, though sometimes reluctantly, that language evolves. "It's me" sounds okay. Since his chapters can be read randomly, readers less fascinated by D.C.-speak than Safire can skip those sections. Safire often seems star-struck: Charlton Heston called to ask him whether "larger than life" implies "unreal"; "Jacques" [Barzun] dropped him a note commenting on the word denounce. This is a book that will appeal to those who love "the language dodge." (Index not seen.) [For another view of Safire, see "Safire Reads LJ," Inside Track, LJ 7/94, p. 72.-Ed.]-Peter Dollard, Alma Coll. Lib., Mich.
--Peter Dollard, Alma Coll. Lib., Mich.
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Booklist

The best part of Safire's collected columns is the responses from readers that he selects to publish: the corrections from the "Gotcha Gang," the erudite explications from professorial types, the defenses from public officials, etc. Not that Safire's nationally syndicated columns aren't worth reading again and again, but printed with reactions from his fans and critics they are even better. Here, for instance, you'll find Safire's exquisite meditations on summer reading, whether it's to be done "on the beach," "at the shore," or, in New Jersey, "down the shore." Many other colloquialisms, common expressions, and mangled terms are taken apart, examined, and put to use in witty, instructive ways. Denise Perry Donavin --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover
• Publisher: Random House Value Publishing (October 2, 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0517172380
• ISBN-13: 978-0517172384
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.2 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.5 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #4,283,475 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

William Safire began his writing career as a reporter, became a speechwriter in the Nixon White House, and re-crossed the street to write an Op-Ed column in the New York Times for the next three decades. He also wrote the weekly "On Language" column in the New York Times Magazine. He was a winner of the Pulitzer Prize for commentary and the Medal of Freedom.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A generally interesting, sometimes tedious book., June 17, 1996

By A Customer

This review is from: In Love with Norma Loquendi (Hardcover)

Safire's In Love with Norma Loquendi is a compendium of
previously published articles coupled to responses from readers. The book is an
eclectic collection of uses and misuses of words and
phrases. For those with an interest in the fine definition
and use of words, the book is a reasonable read. It is
particularly good for those who like to read short segments,
move on, and return to the book later. Each section is
a page or so in length - just right for certain situations
where a few minutes of reading is all you want. Some of
these sections get a bit long-winded and tedious, but the
next page generally has a change of subject.

0 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Broadened my emotional and religious horizons., June 17, 1996

By A Customer

This review is from: In Love with Norma Loquendi (Hardcover)

We're in love with her too

4 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars "Woe is me" is not a copula, March 12, 2000

By 

Michael J. Connor (Waltham, MA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: In Love with Norma Loquendi (Hardcover)

Safire begins his book with an essay on copulas. Copulas are linking verbs, and most often they are formed from the verb "be." " John is a boy" is a copula. One of the traditional rules of English grammar is that a noun or pronoun must be in the nominative case to complete the meaning of a copula. These days in all but the most formal speech and writing pronouns in the objective case are more likely to be used with copulas. But then Safire makes an error. He writes "The grammatically pristine form of "Woe is me" is "Woe is I" or "Woe am I" but go tell that to Ophelia and Isaiha." "Woe is me" is not a copula. It is a "noun + verb + dative object" construction. There is no controversy here. The great grammarians Matzner, Abbott, Franz, Jespersen, Visser and so on have all demonstrated that in Early Modern English dative objects were less likely to have prepositions before them then dative objects today. Safire quotes a professor who says as much but Safire will have none of it. He says that Shakespeare did "intend to equate `woe' and `me.'" He then goes on to write "Sometimes the truth lies flat and you only confuse yourself looking for "understood" hidden words." By ignoring the facts Safire got it wrong. There is nothing hidden here. "Me" is understood to be a dative. In Old English the dative pronoun for the first person singular was "me," the accusitive was "mec," and the nomanitve was "ic." In Old English there was no need to use a preposition to mark the dative pronoun. In fact to use a preposition with a dative pronoun was a pleonasm. With the decay of inflectional forms in Middle English period, the pronoun "mec" became obsolete and was replaced by the dative pronoun "me". Because of this there rose a need to distinguish the dative from the accusitive and this was done by using prepositions. But the unmarked dative, the dative without a preposition remaind a regular feature English throughout the Early Modern English period.