Strunk and White is an American publication, is it not? May a user of British English learn from it, or will he be led astray? If not, is there a British English counterpart?

I can't go on, I'll go on.
1 2
Strunk and White is an American publication, is it not? =A0

Yes, Strunk was a professor of English at Cornell. About 100 years ago.
May a user of British English learn from it, or will he be led astray? ==A0

You judge: Loan is a noun; lend is a verb.
GFH
Strunk and White is an American publication, is it not? May a user of British English learn from it, or will he be led astray? If not, is there a British English counterpart?

While it is about American English, points at which one might be led astray will be few (if any) and, usually, obvious, as with vocabulary.

Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english /
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
UsenetStrunk and White is an American publication, is it not? May a user of British English learn from it, or will he be led astray? If not, is there a British English counterpart?

Yes - William Strunk and E. B. White were the authors of an American book called 'The Elements of Style', which purported to be a style guide. It's been largely discredited as nonsense - having read some of the advice (especially on passives) I can see why. Avoid it like the plague is my advice. As for an alternative, that depends on what you are trying to achieve. Any of the works by David Crystal (which cover all aspects of our language) are highly recommended. Fowler's Modern English Usage is held in high regard as is 'Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage' and The Chicago Manual of Style' Take you pick, but avoid S&W.

BillJ
. . . 'The Elements of Style'. . . (has) been largely discredited as nonsense . . .

No, it hasn't: it has been described that way by some folk who are mostly either not well familiar with it or not themselves well versed in English. It is today a sort of fashion statement to deprecate the work.

It was conceived not as a complete and authoritative ultimate guide to English grammar and syntax, but rather as a short, simple corrective for the most common significant errors Strunk encountered as a professor of English. It is largely a collection of terse apothegms, hence the word "Elements" in the title. Some years afterward, E. B. White much expanded the original, which was little more than a pamphlet, adding some much less snappy text on writing.
Strunk's advice on voice, for example, remains sound to this hour: use the active voice unless there's a good reason not to ("The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive . . . . This rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary.")

Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english /
Strunk and White is an American publication, is it not? =A0May a user of British English learn from it, or will he be led astray? =A0If not, is there a British English counterpart? I can't go on, I'll go on.

There are three main editions of Elements of Style. The editions augmented and revised by EB White are the most well known and date from the late 1940s. (I used it in the 1960s). White did not make drastic revisions to the Strunk-only edition. There is a new edition that continues the brand. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elements of Styl= e
for a brief history of the work.
It is worth looking at one of the EB White editions. White was an excellent editor, essayist writer of literature for youths. He was neither constrained nor misled by his own advice. I wouldn't rely on such a work. You'd be better advised to read EB White's essays.

Almost any work that is not too priggish can help make one aware of the use of language. As reference works I like Garner's Modern American Usage (2009) and the Merriam Webster Dictionary of English Usage. Crystal writes interestingly and widely, though not so much on usage.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
UsenetNo, it hasn't: it has been described that way by some folk who are mostly either not well familiar with it or not themselves well versed in English.

That's simply untrue. The criticism has come from experts (how could it come from anyone else?) which means you are saying that Professor Geoff Pullum (Head of Linguistics at Edinburgh University) and Rodney Huddleston (Emiritus Professor of English at University of Queensland), to name but two 'folk' who (especially the former) have vehemently criticised The Elements of Style, fit that description. Oh, and so must Jan Freeman, columnist for the Boston Globe, who says: "The book has a lot of silly or half-explained 'rules'.....But treating 'Elements' as a bible of good usage is literally laughable. Read through the chapter on 'Words and Expressions Commonly Misused': if you can get past the entry for 'Clever' with a straight face, you've got too much self-control for you own good."

I could go on for ever, but I think you get the point.

BillJ
Perhaps you would care to explain the good reasons for not using the active voice in two of the six tenses that precede this recommendation? Could it be that you're no more capable of following Strunk's silly rules in practice than Strunk was?

Easily: the function of the passive voice is to allow something that would normally not be the focus of the thought to become that focus. Compare:
John A. Roebling designed the Brooklyn Bridge.
The Brooklyn Bridge was designed by John A. Roebling.

The first fits well into text focussing on Roebling; the second is appropriate for text focussing on the Bridge.
Since the focus of the post was the book usually called "Strunk & White", it was appropriate for that to be the focus of most of the sentences. For example
(I)t has been described that way by some folk . . .

is more focussed on the true subject than would be:

Some folk have described it that way . . .
Got it?
If you think Strunk's rules are "silly", you need not follow them. Those who like their writing to be pleasingly readable, however, will continue to follow the silly guidelines (not "rules").

Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english /
As reference works I like Garner's Modern American Usage (2009) and the Merriam Webster Dictionary of English Usage. . . .

Another fine reference is Wilson Follett's Modern American Usage (the original, not the "amended" version by Wensberg, who played Burchfield to Follett).

Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english /
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more