A Desk-Book of Errors in English Including Notes on Colloquialisms and Slang to be Avoided in Conversation — Themes and Context
Edition facts
The source record for A Desk-Book of Errors in English Including Notes on Colloquialisms and Slang to be Avoided in Conversation — Themes and Context measures this digital text at 56,403 words, 4 hr 6 min estimated reading time, and 8 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 18.1 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “English language -- Errors of usage,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
ses motion away from; _fetch_ expresses motion from a given place to another, as for the purpose of obtaining some article, and return to the given place with the article required. _Go and fetch_ is pleonastic.
~Britannia~: This word is often misspelled “Brittannia.” It is from Britain and should be spelled with only one “t” but two “n’s.”
~broach~, ~brooch~: Discriminate carefully between these terms. Although both are derived from the same source etymologically (Latin, _broca_, a spike) they are now widely different in meaning. A _broach_ may mean “a boring into an opening, a spit, or a spire.” It is also the name of the boring bits or drills used in carpentering or engineering. It means also “to approach any one in conversation” on some particular subject. A _brooch_ is “a breastpin or an ornamental pin or clasp used as for display or to fasten some part of a dress.”
~broke~: A word often misused for “broken.” Do not say “I’m _broke_” say rather “broken”--~To go broke~: A colloquial phrase common in commercial circles for “to become bankrupt.” These terms are avoided by persons who cultivate a refined diction.
~brothers~: Distinguished from ~brethren~. The one applies to those who are _brothers_ by birth, whereas the other indicates fraternal relationship in some order or society.
~building~, ~being built~: There are advocates of either form. Fitzedward Hall has shown conclusively that “is being built” has been used by the best writers for a century or more, and now has universal literary sanction. Richard Whately, George P. Marsh, Richard Grant White, and other critics have strenuously objected to this use. In literature there is support enough for their views: Milton wrote “while the Temple of the Lord _was building_.” Dr. Johnson, in writing to Boswell, of his _Lives of the Poets_ said “My ‘Lives’ _are reprinting_;” Macaulay followed the same style and wrote “Chelsea Hospital _was building_”; “while innocent blood _was_ shedding.” _Being_ has a special modern use with passive forms of verbs to express progressive action. For example, is, are, or _was being_ built, expresses what is expressed also by is, are, or _was building_, _a-building_, or _in building_. Both forms are permissible, but “is _being built_” is more frequently heard and, perhaps, preferable.
~building~, ~construction~: Alfred Ayres (_Some Ill-used Words_, p. 44) quotes the following example of the misuse of these words: “These two advisory bodies have recommended the _building_ of battleships. It is understood that Mr. Long is opposed to the _construction_ [constructing] of any armorclads.” Mr. Ayres points out that if _building_ is correct--and it is--then _construction_ is incorrect and the correct word to use is _constructing_.
~bum~: A vulgar term for “an idle, dissolute fellow; a loafer,”--~on the bum~. A vulgar phrase used to denote that that to which it is applied is of poor quality, badly done, or has been subjected to careless treatment.
~busted~: A slang term for financially broken, not used by persons accustomed to a refined diction. Compare BROKE.
~but~, ~however~: Discriminate carefully between these words. Do not say “He is suffering--not, _however_, acutely;” say rather, “He is suffering, _but_ not acutely.”
~but that~: Implies a negative, but when it follows another negative phrase (as “I _don’t know but that_ I did it”) it suggests the positive or, as in the example given above, the likelihood or possibility that some act has been done. Locutions of this kind should be avoided as inelegant, say rather “I may have done it.”
~but what~: This is equivalent to _but that which_ and is an incorrect expression for _but that_. “I am not sure _but what_ I shall be there” should be written _but that_, and indicates the possibility or even probability of being there; but note that if the _but_ be omitted from the latter (and correct) usage, the indication is the reverse. Compare BUT THAT.
~but yet~: Should not be used when either _but_ or _yet_ is sufficient by itself; as, “Wealth may seek us; _but_ wisdom must be sought”; not _but yet_. When, however, Archbishop Trench says, “_But yet_ these pains hand us over to true pleasures” (_Study of Words_, p. 232), each conjunction has its distinct adversative sense. This appears still more clearly in “Ye are but common men, _but_ [on the contrary] _yet_ [notwithstanding that fact] ye think with minds not common.”--COLERIDGE _Wallenstein_ 2, 3.
~bute~: A vulgar corruption of “beauty” used by illiterates; as, “She’s a _bute_.” Correctly “She is a beauty” or “a beautiful woman.”
~butt in, to~: A vulgar although expressive phrase meaning “to interfere officiously or inquisitively with,” not used by persons accustomed to refined diction.
Frank H. Vizetelly's A Desk-Book of Errors in English (1920 revised edition) is a prescriptive usage guide that targets the colloquial inelegancies and vulgarisms he saw invading polite speech. The entries, arranged alphabetically, blend etymology, grammatical correction, and social judgment. For instance, under 'jewels, jewelry' he insists the two are not interchangeable: jewels are personal adornments, jewelry the trade stock. Such distinctions reveal his method of anchoring usage in precise definitions rather than mere preference.
The Lexicographer's Voice: Prescription and Social Censure
Vizetelly's entries often carry a tone of moral urgency. Under 'jaw' he declares that expressions like 'Hold your jaw' have 'no place in the vocabulary of persons of refinement.' The word 'jag' is dismissed as a euphemism for 'drunk' and 'a term to be avoided in polite society.' This coupling of linguistic error with social class is consistent: slang and vulgarisms are not merely incorrect but markers of low breeding. The preface frames the book as a defense against 'illiterate communications' that 'corrupt good grammar,' a battle waged in the home and schoolroom.
Etymology as a Tool for Correction
Vizetelly frequently appeals to a word's root meaning to condemn common usage. Under 'journal' he notes that the French origin means 'daily,' so phrases like 'daily journal' or 'weekly journal' are 'violent catachresis.' He recommends 'daily newspaper' or 'weekly magazine' instead. Similarly, 'join issue' is distinguished from 'take issue' by legal history: to join issue is to admit the right of denial, not to agree. These etymological arguments give his corrections an air of objective authority, even when usage had already shifted.
Slang and the Boundaries of Acceptable Speech
The book catalogues slang with a mixture of disapproval and lexicographic curiosity. 'Ivories' for piano keys is labeled 'a slang term,' and 'tickle the ivories' a 'coarse way' of expressing piano playing. 'Jollier' and 'jolly, to' are identified as slang of 'widespread usage,' while 'josh' is a 'vulgarism' best replaced by 'chaff' or 'banter.' Vizetelly does not merely list these terms; he assigns them a social rank, often contrasting them with 'more refined' alternatives. The effect is a taxonomy of linguistic respectability.
Pronoun Reference and Syntactic Clarity
Vizetelly devotes careful attention to ambiguous pronoun reference, a problem he calls a 'stumbling-block' for inexperienced writers. He critiques a sentence using 'it' and 'its' where the antecedent is unclear, recommending replacement with 'such repeal be.' The entry under 'it' warns against referring to 'any one of several words or clauses preceding, or perhaps to some idea merely implied.' This focus on syntactic precision reflects his broader concern that language should be unambiguous—a principle that underpins many of his corrections throughout the book.
Readers should approach this desk-book as a historical document of early twentieth-century prescriptivism. Vizetelly's judgments—on 'jiggered' as a minced oath or 'jar' as a misuse for 'disconcert'—reveal the social anxieties behind language regulation. The entries reward browsing, offering a snapshot of what one editor considered the border between correct and corrupt English.
Sometimes I shelve A Desk-Book of Errors in English and think how Vizetelly, for all his fussing over words, would have admired the way Yeats made language sing. That Index of the Project Gutenberg Works of William Butler Yeats — Context and Discussion feels like a quiet ledger of a different sort—not corrections, but careful orbits around a lifelong craft. Two keepers of the word, each in their own room.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
Take a moment to reflect on this book
Create a short personal record of your experience with this book.