William Brohaugh

This book on etymology is two books in one. Most of the time the book is highly interesting to those who want to know word origins. At other times it is confusing where word origins seem strained and the author's penchant for puns gets in the way of understanding.

Unfortunate English was an interesting read. I found myself sharing tidbits (or titbits actually) with my friends and family. Brohaugh really enjoys his puns as well as changing famous quotes to suit his purpose. For instance, "and now, one might say, these words fall upon death ears" introduces the section on torture and death.
There were only two problems I had with the book: One, some of the etymologies seemed far-fetched, like he was trying too hard to be able to add this or that word to show more the book or chapter when it really didn't belong. Two, he doesn't always give the current definition of a word, which can lead to confusion if you're not completely confident about what it means. (He tries to make jokes between the current definition and the former definition, but this doesn't work at all if you don't know the current meaning.) Both of these problems only occurred a few times throughout the book. show less

The book starts with a simple premise: Everything you know about English is wrong. The book is split up into sections explaining why everything you thought you knew about English is wrong.

Well, not everything, it's mostly about rumours floating around on Internet message boards about the etymology of words, such as "bullshit" and "bull" are not really etymologically related, "fuck" is not "fornication under consent of the king", and "shit" is not "ship high in transit".

The book also talks show more about the changing meaning of words, and tells "persnicketers" that if they are upset with a new meaning of a word, they should make sure to always use it in its original meaning, which the author makes sure to include. Meanings that often go back to the 1300s.

My only complaint is the segment on the use of "literally" when describing something that is quite obviously not what literally happened. The author's argument is that when someone uses an expression (the given example is "I was (literally) climbing the walls"), without the word "literally", the speaker is still describing the event literally, but it is understood to be figurative. When they add the word "literally", they are still describing a literal event, and it is still understood to be figurative. It was a good argument, but that use still bothers me because it is using a word with a clearly defined meaning to mean the opposite of what it does.

Finally, the book includes a very important grammar lesson: There is only one rule in English writing that is followed everywhere, in fiction, in nonfiction, in technical writing and even in poetry. That rule is that you *never* start a sentence with a comma. show less

Love this Book! It has always been there for me when I need to ensure the accuracy of word usage in a specific time period. Couldn't write without it!