What do you think?
Rate this book
Instant English Handbook
Actually two books in one--a quick reference guide to correct usage and a step-by-step text for skill development-- The Instant English Handbook lets you express yourself with ease and accuracy in writing and speaking. Rapid answers to grammar questions and easy-to-follow instructions for avoiding embarrassing mistakes are at your fingertips in a compact, portable handbook for all your language needs.
- GenresReference
320 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1978
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 30, 2019
Generally, the Handbook is good at explaining the reasons that underlie English usage. Here and there, the authors get picky as, for example, when they list adjectives that express a “quality to the highest possible degree.” We know about “unique.” Something can’t be more than one, even though in everyday language that word conveys “unusual” or “different” and the world moves on without a problem. Among their adjectives, they say that “If a circle is absolutely round, another circle could not be more round.” Note the fudge word, “absolutely.” Only in Plato’s world of forms is there such absolute roundness. Theoretically, the Earth is round since gravity pulls everything into a point. But it’s not perfectly round. Do we then not talk about the Earth as round? Can we say, “basically round?” I suppose it’s also not correct to say that something is the “very best.”
I like the authors’ emphasis on the rules of English that promote clear communication, but clear thought and presentation also enhance communication. Here, there are some problems with this Handbook. For example, the authors state that a “complement completes the meaning expressed by a verb” (apparently, “complement” comes from “complete”). The complement that expresses action is the direct object (“I saw Evelyn.”). Then the authors confuse the reader by saying that some verbs complete the meaning without a complement (“Jan is singing.”).
As with other English usage books, the discussion by these authors of verbs confuses. They say that the “three basic forms of verbs are present and past tense, and past participle.” These are basic because “the six tenses of verbs can be built from them.” Well, I’m wondering, do they really need to reference “the three principal parts” of verbs? They already have past and present tenses and the past participles to deal with the perfected tenses. And what about the future tense? That one they cover in the following chapter where they remind us that there are “six tenses in English,” three simple tenses (past, present and future) and three perfect tenses (these in completed form, using past participles)? But of course there are the progressive tenses that they also mention and, thus, a question about why the verb count for verb tenses is not nine?
Given the pervasive but largely hidden role, the discussion of auxiliary (helping) and linking verbs (there’s overlap) would benefit by having more extensive treatment. The authors note that the linking verb, “to be” is implied. For example: “Cookies are good” means essentially the same thing as “cookies “taste” or “smell” good. The authors suggest that we can mentally supply the “to be” verb here (“The cookies smell ‘to be’ good”), but I think it’s clearer to simply say that the “to be” notion just gets more specific in its description of some defining quality for the senses.
In the sentence, “the men work,” the authors say that “work” is the principle verb. In its helping verb form, “men are working,” “are” helps the main verb (“helping”) and is, therefore, auxiliary in that sense.* But then auxiliary verbs also have this odd quality of hijacking the main verb by changing its tense, which seems to occur (or which occurs) in the active versus passive voice. In the active formulation, we might say for example that “pain triggers behavior.” In its passive formulation, we say, “behavior is triggered by pain. In this example, the helping verb seems to be the principle verb, not auxiliary because it controls the verb “trigger”.*
Interestingly also, these auxiliary-helping verb hijacks the main verb in another sense. “The girl needs work” changes the verb (person?) with the addition of the helping verb, as in “does the girl need me?” or as in “he creates” versus “he can create” or, as in (four sentences back) ‘which occurs’ versus “which seems to occur.”**
It’s hard not to wonder whether English handbooks could not scrap the existing paradigm, with its archaic organization structures and terminology.
*The way I understand this is that auxiliary-helping verbs support principle verbs of action whereas in their linking verb form they define the quality or state of the subject as in “Cookies are good.”
** This hijacking of tense of occurs also through a qualifying prepositional phrase. To say “they are leaving,” is in the present tense, but it moves into a future tense with the addition of “in the morning.” The same type of hijacking of a present tense and turning it into a future tense occurs with “to go,” as in “He is going to buy a new home,” where “is going” moves to the future when combined with the infinitive, “to buy.”
I like the authors’ emphasis on the rules of English that promote clear communication, but clear thought and presentation also enhance communication. Here, there are some problems with this Handbook. For example, the authors state that a “complement completes the meaning expressed by a verb” (apparently, “complement” comes from “complete”). The complement that expresses action is the direct object (“I saw Evelyn.”). Then the authors confuse the reader by saying that some verbs complete the meaning without a complement (“Jan is singing.”).
As with other English usage books, the discussion by these authors of verbs confuses. They say that the “three basic forms of verbs are present and past tense, and past participle.” These are basic because “the six tenses of verbs can be built from them.” Well, I’m wondering, do they really need to reference “the three principal parts” of verbs? They already have past and present tenses and the past participles to deal with the perfected tenses. And what about the future tense? That one they cover in the following chapter where they remind us that there are “six tenses in English,” three simple tenses (past, present and future) and three perfect tenses (these in completed form, using past participles)? But of course there are the progressive tenses that they also mention and, thus, a question about why the verb count for verb tenses is not nine?
Given the pervasive but largely hidden role, the discussion of auxiliary (helping) and linking verbs (there’s overlap) would benefit by having more extensive treatment. The authors note that the linking verb, “to be” is implied. For example: “Cookies are good” means essentially the same thing as “cookies “taste” or “smell” good. The authors suggest that we can mentally supply the “to be” verb here (“The cookies smell ‘to be’ good”), but I think it’s clearer to simply say that the “to be” notion just gets more specific in its description of some defining quality for the senses.
In the sentence, “the men work,” the authors say that “work” is the principle verb. In its helping verb form, “men are working,” “are” helps the main verb (“helping”) and is, therefore, auxiliary in that sense.* But then auxiliary verbs also have this odd quality of hijacking the main verb by changing its tense, which seems to occur (or which occurs) in the active versus passive voice. In the active formulation, we might say for example that “pain triggers behavior.” In its passive formulation, we say, “behavior is triggered by pain. In this example, the helping verb seems to be the principle verb, not auxiliary because it controls the verb “trigger”.*
Interestingly also, these auxiliary-helping verb hijacks the main verb in another sense. “The girl needs work” changes the verb (person?) with the addition of the helping verb, as in “does the girl need me?” or as in “he creates” versus “he can create” or, as in (four sentences back) ‘which occurs’ versus “which seems to occur.”**
It’s hard not to wonder whether English handbooks could not scrap the existing paradigm, with its archaic organization structures and terminology.
*The way I understand this is that auxiliary-helping verbs support principle verbs of action whereas in their linking verb form they define the quality or state of the subject as in “Cookies are good.”
** This hijacking of tense of occurs also through a qualifying prepositional phrase. To say “they are leaving,” is in the present tense, but it moves into a future tense with the addition of “in the morning.” The same type of hijacking of a present tense and turning it into a future tense occurs with “to go,” as in “He is going to buy a new home,” where “is going” moves to the future when combined with the infinitive, “to buy.”
Displaying 1 of 1 review