Lyft Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Transparent Transparent Transparent  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held GNO Tailgating FFII_gno



There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-10 of 32 reviews(Verified Purchases). See all 39 reviews
on January 23, 2017
An absolutely unreadable kindle edition. Format (spacing between lines, font size, width of column, italics, text appearing as an exponent would (moved halfway up, or sometimes down, the horizontal line), strange characters such as british pound sign, etc.) varies maybe 20 times on a given screen. Also, the word "aetat" appears repeatedly in front of numbers. Here's Example 1.

verb-construe A!N$nene 14 ALBINO tion (at with the gerund not being the-way word is dear for its own even mentioned) after aim. sake, or rather is welcome as giving aine.

Sorry, in the Amazon comment box I couldn't reproduce the two words, at and aim, that are in italics, or the word aine that was half a line under the rest and in smaller font. Also, the $ was a British pound sign but I can't reproduce that either, so I picked the $ sign. Here's example 2:

The normal use, & sense,.
ALMIGHTY 16 ALONE

however, are same as those of tion. Allude to has the same admit of. limitationsExamples of the legitialmighty.So spelt; see -u>, -L,4.mate use are:--We looked at each all right.The words should always other wondering which of MS he was be written separate ; there are no alluding to ;

Sorry, I couldn't reproduce the italics in 17 of these words or the 12 words in smaller fonts and below the line of the other words. Maybe some italics are good, such as for Allude to and admit of, but there is so much inconsistency you go crazy trying to figure out what is going on. And here's another example: Jvortin is tvilling

Not convinced yet? Then how about another example: procity Bill was passed; but by perfectly & then written them with pressing it through Congress Presithe FORMAL WORD anticipate ; ANA dent Taft antagonized both the StandLOGY has duped them into supposing patters

Again, I couldn't replicate the italics and 5 words below the line or 6 words above the line.

I double checked my typing. So sorry whoever put Fowler's into Kindle didn't check out what they thought they had done.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 14, 2014
I was delighted to find a reprint of the first edition of this book published with interesting commentary by David Crystal. My chief complaint about the book is the production value of the e-copy. I've only looked at a few pages and I'm already noticing OCR errors, e.g., "denning" instead of "defining," and words that are stuck together with no space between them, e.g., "to shrink with horror from endingwith a prepositionis no more than foolish superstition." These errors not only make the book harder to read, they impair the "find" function, which is one of the chief advantages of this format for a reference book.

At this price, from this publisher, I expected better.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 7, 2010
Here's the deal with Fowler's.

1926: First irascible version of Fowler's "Dictionary of Modern English Usage" published. Owing to the author's idiosyncrasies and clear-headed prescriptions, it earns a place on every writer's shelf.

1965: An new edition comes out, edited by Sir Ernest Gowers. Most people believe Gowers only brought the language up-to-date where absolutely necessary, keeping the spirit of the original intact. In other words, this revision was hailed as welcome and necessary.

1996: Massive overhaul of the text published, edited by the famous Robert W. Burchfield. Burchfield thoroughly changes the language and even the spirit of Fowler's original, resulting in a book that is much more observational than prescriptional. Much of what made the original beloved was excised.

2009: David Crystal digs up the 1926 edition, reprints it, and writes a big honkin' essay at the end, (almost needlessly) justifying the resuscitation of the original.

Thus what we have is generally thought to be superior to the 1996 edition, but I think most writers and editors would have been happy to do without Crystal's contributions and simply had Oxford University Press flood the world with a bunch of reprints of the 1965 edition, which, since that's the one everybody seems to want, is becoming danged hard to find.
66 comments| 99 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 23, 2013
This review is for the Kindle version of the book. This is a classic text and, while I prefer Garner's Modern American Usage, it is still a book that I enjoy reading.

Fowler's was from the "prescriptive" school of linguistics, telling us what is and what is not acceptable. Even if your preference is for a "descriptive" approach, you may still enjoy someone who, with wit and erudition, proclaims a "one right way" of approaching something (although, to be fair, Fowler ripped into many of the so-called rules such as never splitting an infinitive or ending a sentence with a preposition, thus giving writers more than one way to write).

The Kindle version has a hyperlinked Table of Contents, but it is harder to find something than in the printed version which is much easier to flip through. You can search for a word, but the search results give you every occurrence of that word in the book; not terribly useful.

At any rate, I like having a copy that is portable. If Garner's Modern American Usage had a hyperlinked index, I would own a Kindle version of it as well. Alas, it does not.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 16, 2017
The Kindle version is impossible to read, at least on the on the cloud reader.
review image
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 1, 2017
Fowler is great but this Kindle edition has the worst OCR errors I've seen. A large part of the book is unreadable.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 1, 2017
Hilarious. Who would have thought that you could sit around reading a dictionary laughing.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 29, 2015
There is literally an OCR error in the first sentence of the Kindle version of this book. That's a serious error for any title, but for this book in particular it's egregious.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 16, 2011
I'm so pleased to find this book on Amazon. It is a delight to read - sensible and well-thought out comments. This books represents a kind of wonderful English scholarship that has sadly disappeared. Fowler is literate, personal, and great fun. Crystal's introduction, on the other hand, is the usual post-modern analysis - not helpful and not interesting.
11 comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 30, 2009
Fowler's strong and often cranky opinions are all here, expressed in his elegant prose. Notes and other material by David Crystal are all interesting; as always, Crystal knows what he's talking about when he talks about the English language.

The main text of this reprint is an exact copy of my worn, brittle original, except that the new edition ends with the penultimate page, page 741. Page 742 is entirely blank, depriving the reader of Fowler's final entries for "Z", about two-thirds of a page. It looks as though some summer intern or apprentice printer thought that the page had to be blank because it precedes a section of David Crystal's new material.

The book is still entirely worthwhile even without the missing page. One can only wonder what Fowler (and Oxford's printers of yore) would say about the error.
11 comment| 23 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse