A great one

G. Leech and J. Svartvik wrote the first edition of this book, released in 1975. I used it as a University text in the late 1980s, and it sits prominent amongst my references in my office. Though the book is designed for advanced ESL students (at the University level), I am a native speaker of the language, and find the approach taken unique, but of greater value than many other style manuals. I refer to it before going to the Chicago Manual of Style or the MLA Style Manual.

The authors look at the USES of grammar rather than the STRUCTURE of grammar. This is very useful for writers (like myself), teachers of ESL, advanced students of ESL, or those who need to learn how to communicate better (Engineers).

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 have been driven up the wall for decades with 'grammar' books that clearly omit gargantuan amounts of information on grammar. If you use English, and you have ever had a question on grammar that wasn't answered to your satisfaction, you need to get this book. The book is not for everyone. Many people don't care that much about the details of grammar, and the book would just sit on their shelf. It's not for foreign language persons, unless they really want to understand the details and are willing to take the time to learn. It's not a book to learn conversational grammar. It's a scientist's book that nails the grammar down where it can be nailed down, and then clearly delineates the boundaries where it can't. If truly grasping grammar is important to you, this is your text.

I first encountered (and purchased) this book while teaching English in Germany. It is the finest grammar of English in all its flavors that I have ever seen. The index is non-traditional, but I found its apparatus far more efficient than most indices I have worked with. I do not recall ever not being able to find something in this exemplary work.