A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language Standard Edition

I was very bad at English grammar in the past ,and I came to U.S to study. English schools I enrolled took thousands of dollars from me while teaching me 1 to 3 percent of grammar.I learned almost nothing at English classes as they skipped many basic chapters. At the end of all english classes, I realised I was not fluent in English at writing, speaking levels,etc...I went on a search for the best and most comprehensive english grammar book , and ,here , I found myself. I got this book without a second thought. If ,in the past, someone had told me about this book, I would never have paid English teachers so much money. I learned my lessons the hard way after all .Don't trust someone to teach you everything you want to learn while paying them ! Do your share of work , and you come out satisfied in the end! Save yourself some money and get this book to learn all about English grammar that you may not know enough at ' those English schools.'

The book looks great, 1985 edition, better than I expected. It arrived a little bit earlier and in a very good condition, in terms of transportation.Thank you for your support!

As expected !

I've had no chance to read "Huddleston, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language", but in my opinion Quirk's work is the only real reference grammar on the market.For sure you cannot read it while relaxing yourself on the beach, but for any serious advanced student (and mainly for more specialized users such as teachers, writers and so on) it is a must-have (and to study, hard study !!) book.I've bought many english grammars but no one is as realiable and structured as this one. The complementary book for Quirk is "Biber, Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English": it's a great work bust my first impression is not so good as expected (too much data and analisys, very poor synthesis)

Although it is an expensive book, it covers all the doubts I have ever had. I fact, I have just read some pages but the texts are clear and very informative. Hope had bought it before. Awesome book.

As the title and price suggest, this is a reference grammar of English, not a textbook. It's written for people who already have a grasp of basic grammatical principles. This is the sort of book that you pick up when you want to look up patterns of verb complementation, etc. Only a masochist would try to read it straight through, or to learn grammar from it.The _Comprehensive Grammar_ is an expanded and revised version of a series of grammars first published in 1972 (starting with _A Grammar of Contemporary English_.) Since its publication, this book has been *the* standard reference work used by professional grammarians. It is a scholarly, descriptive account of English based on extensive analysis of real usage. It is particularly strong in the way that it stresses the communicative functions of English. It tries to present material without being bound to a specific theoretical position. In many ways, this was a wise idea, since it has allowed the book to remain useful over the years while syntactic theories have changed drastically.If you come to this book from traditional, schoolbook grammars, this work will seem quite modern, especially in its treatment of tense and with some word categories like determiners.On the other hand, since the basic framework for this book was laid down in the 1960s, it does not reflect much of the research that has occurred since.I have used this book for years now, and until recently, I would have recommended it without reservation as the best reference grammar available and given it five stars, despite the fact that it was beginning to get a bit long in the tooth. In 2002, however, Huddleston and Pullum brought out their _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_, which is destined to supplant Quirk, et al. as the standard reference.Huddleston and Pullum challenge the analysis of the _Comprehensive Grammar_ in many places, and (from the parts that I've read, at least) they make a compelling case.The _Comprehensive Grammar_ remains very useful if you need to see examples of various structures, and to provide a complementary view to Huddleston and Pullum. But since most people can't afford two books of this size, I would go with the newer one, and go to the library if you need to check something in Quirk.

I must admit, though, that the mess is actually that of modern linguistics, from what I can tell. I knew I had made a grave mistake when I spotted the authors' incorrect definition of a clause, two-thirds of which actually defines a phrase. I cannot understand the avoidance of traditional nomenclature. Is "nominal -ing participle" really preferable to "gerund"? And good luck finding "object of the preposition" or "substantivized adjective"--just you wait until you get a load of what they call those! The faulty definition of "clause," in particular, reflects frequently inadequate and downright bizarre ways of analyzing the authors' supposed "clauses." Steer clear of this one. And if the Cambridge grammar is supposed to make this one seem old-fashioned, I suggest you just go ahead and burn that one.SO I NEED SOME HELP FROM YOU GUYS: I want a comprehensive English grammar that uses TRADITIONAL, VERY OLD, DOWNRIGHT ANCIENT nomenclature and modes of analysis, rather than any of that despicable "modern linguistics." And keep in mind that my background is in CLASSICS--that fact should help. So, what are your suggestions?

I have a PhD in translation English-Spanish and I can tell everybody this is the very best English grammar ever written. It covers absolutely everything. I have been teaching English in four different universities and this has been always my first and best choice. If cast away in a desert island, this is the book I would take.