Recs for books like Emily Post? Looking for interesting adjacent stuff. Somebody on /lit/ has to know. The more obscure and foreign the better + any time period.
>>25283610Try the illustrated I Ching comrade
>>25283613alright
>>25283610>The more obscure and foreign the betterlol. Have a bump.
>>25283610Not exactly what you asked for, but H. W. Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage. It’s like a language etiquette book. Fowler is actually an entertaining and inquisitive writer and I think his edition deserves and repays perusal.
>>25283644looks good ty
>>25283651Garner's Modern English Usage would actually be better in context of etiquette and better about providing an understanding of nuance. Garner uses Fowler as a reference and does yield to Fowler when Fowler is the clear authority on a topic. Fowler is myopically concerned with style, often to the detriment of understanding usage; a good quip is more important than understanding, Garner is very pragmatic.
>>25283655Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Garner an American?Actually Kingsley Amis wrote his own (non-exhaustive) guide to modern usage too. And Robert Graves has a good book on it. Fowler never really set out to be pragmatic though. No writer on the subject could really hope that their recommendations would be followed by more than a small fraction of their readership. Settling scores, shaking things up, and being provocative without being unjust were certainly among his aims.
>>25283724What does nationality have to do with anything? Garner being a pragmatist when it comes to usage covers English usage across the anglophone world and includes the differences of usage across the anglophone world including when it is best to follow the usage of the country or to employ more universal anglophone usage. In context of etiquette, Garner is the only reasonable option, he covers usage in a way that will prepare you for not coming across as a retard regardless of where in the anglophone world you are and how to address the anglophone world as a whole. More recent editions of Fowler are not terrible in this regard but they stick to Fowler's style and have a heavy leaning towards the usage of England. Graves and Amis are terribly out of date and useless in context of etiquette.Garner does not shake things up, he is a hardcore prescriptionist when it comes to usage. He also has a better sense of humor than Fowler and is far better when it comes to citation; he understands that being a hardcore prescriptionist does not give him a license to prescribe.
>>25283758>What does nationality have to do with anything?was a little joke. I pointed to Fowler as someone worth reading more than a strict rule book. English has no Academie francaise. There is no simple, correct English, but only innumerable precedents of arguable validity.>He also has a better sense of humor than Fowleroutrageous.
>>25283780>There is no simple, correct English, but only innumerable precedents of arguable validity.Which Garner acknowledges but Fowler does not, at least not to any useful extent. Anytime things are not clear cut, Garner goes into why it is not clear cut, provides a good number of citations along with rundowns on their views and the evolution. >outrageousFowler is low effort pandering, its funny because I agree! Garner's humor is about the language itself and its absurdities; his humor is lit.
>>25283791Fowler knew, it’s implicit in everything he wrote; the pleasure was in the argument itself. It’s why his humour was combative (rather than merely prescriptive) and often of the ‘savage’ variety when seeing off linguistic prigs and pedants. Waugh admired him. So did Powell, Orwell, Larkin. Now: will you lay your hand on your heart and swear to me that you’re not an American?
>>25283830You are arguing based purely off of what I said and not knowledge you personally have, don't be that retard. Fowler's humor is closer to prescriptive than Garner's; most of Fowler's humor is meant to add weight to what he prescribes, Garner is just having lols about language. When it comes to etiquette there is no argument, Garner wins hands down. Your screenshot of Fowler's entry on Gender is a good example, if you use that as your guide for usage, you will offend people and that is poor etiquette; Garner on the other hand goes on for the better part of a page and explains its modern jargonistic usage in all of its complexities with the very clear subtext of; just don't use the word unless you are writing jargon and if you are, here is how you use it properly whether you want to avoid offense or offend, which is great advice as far as etiquette goes.
>>25283930>You are arguing based purely off of what I saidThat’s not a weakness, that’s a conversation.Worth remembering OP asked for ‘like Emily Post’ - etiquette isn’t as much about being inoffensive as it is the codes that mark you as someone who knows vs someone who doesn’t. It comes with an undercurrent of social class (also style).
>>25283948It wouldn't be a weakness if you were having a conversation instead of arguing out ignorance. I didn't say it was about being inoffensive, I said using Fowler's "usage" of Gender would result in offending people, offending people out of ignorance is very poor etiquette, and I went on to say that Garner would provide you with what you need to offend people intelligently. Good etiquette requires understanding why, Post gives that information, so does Garner, Fowler does not. Your etiquette is atrocious and Emily would agree.
>>25283965F serves the above function. G is a style manual for professionals trying not to embarrass themselves in print. If I said anything out of line you’ll have to forgive me.I won’t comment on what Fowler would make of your English:>Garner being a pragmatist when it comes to usage covers English usage across the anglophone world and includes the differences of usage across the anglophone world including when it is best to follow the usage of the country or to employ more universal anglophone usage (…) in a way that will prepare you for not coming across as a retard regardless of where in the anglophone world you are and how to address the anglophone world as a whole.
>>25283970Garner is not even remotely a style manual. You are once again arguing out of ignorance and talking about things you know nothing about, which is why your etiquette is atrocious. Emily will teach you about such things if you read her. Good job on spotting my not caring about grammar on 4chan and your insertion of an ellipsis to make it look even worse than it was, it really makes up for your failings in this thread.
>>25283992>Garner is not even remotely a style manual.Strange hill to die on. He didn’t build his career on legal style manuals?& God forbid I use standard punctuation to truncate a long quote.>my not caring about grammar on 4chanIn conversations about language. Living proof of what happens when you prioritise cold, pragmatic ‘usage rules’ over style, rhythm and grace. After all of Garner’s important teachings you come out with a remarkably ugly sentence (sorry! two sentences). Couldn’t even spare us a comma. Should go without saying etiquette is an entirely social thing. It’s performance.p.s. Losing your temper over a book recommendation is fairly bad form. p.p.s Wonder how often Emily Post was calling people retards.
I don't think you guys are etiquette pros since you are fighting on 4chan.
>>25284276Yep, we’re beyond saving.
