Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!inka.de!mips.inka.de!.POSTED.localhost!not-for-mail
From: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de>
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language published
 (20-5-1985)
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 20:20:39 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <slrnv4sksn.efm.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
References: <v2jqik$10rm1$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 20:20:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: lorvorc.mips.inka.de; posting-host="localhost:::1";
	logging-data="14839"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@mips.inka.de"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (FreeBSD)
Bytes: 1705
Lines: 21

On 2024-05-22, Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> The 1985 work by the same authors, "far more comprensive in scope", and 
> with an index compiled by our own David Crystal.

> Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston, Pullum, 2002)

If you want a reasonably complete grammar of English, there aren't
that many choices, and I have both on my bookshelf.  Quirk et al.
largely follow the traditional grammatical classifications, while
Huddleston/Pullum try to incorporate newer linguistic understanding
or simply different approaches.  Both works strive to describe how
the English language _is_ rather than proposing how it should be,
so I can recommended neither one to peevers.

Interestingly both of those pricey books come in at around the same
size, some 1,800 pages, so whenever somebody starts telling me that
English grammar is simple, I have a pair of two-kilogram bricks to
club them with.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy@mips.inka.de