Top critical review
25 people found this helpful
The Book Is a Confused Mess!
on March 25, 2008
I must admit, though, that the mess is actually that of modern linguistics, from what I can tell. I knew I had made a grave mistake when I spotted the authors' incorrect definition of a clause, two-thirds of which actually defines a phrase. I cannot understand the avoidance of traditional nomenclature. Is "nominal -ing participle" really preferable to "gerund"? And good luck finding "object of the preposition" or "substantivized adjective"--just you wait until you get a load of what they call those! The faulty definition of "clause," in particular, reflects frequently inadequate and downright bizarre ways of analyzing the authors' supposed "clauses." Steer clear of this one. And if the Cambridge grammar is supposed to make this one seem old-fashioned, I suggest you just go ahead and burn that one.
SO I NEED SOME HELP FROM YOU GUYS: I want a comprehensive English grammar that uses TRADITIONAL, VERY OLD, DOWNRIGHT ANCIENT nomenclature and modes of analysis, rather than any of that despicable "modern linguistics." And keep in mind that my background is in CLASSICS--that fact should help. So, what are your suggestions?