> Most of the complaints I've seen have to do with what he gets wrong about other languages Bryson gets many, many details about the history of English wrong a

> Most of the complaints I've seen have to do with what he gets wrong about other languages Bryson gets many, many details about the history of English wrong as well. > As an introductory book to a eccentric topic though, it works. It's biggest asset, imo, is that Bryson isn't a linguist. No, Bryson is a hack writer and does more harm than good. You make it sound as if the only alternative to Bryson is eggheaded scholarly publications. In fact, there is a wide selection of popular-science treatments of the history of English and other languages that are both reliable and friendly and accessible for ordinary readers (for example, Melvyn Bragg’s The Adventure of English does right what Bryson set out to do). It is like with archaeology: if an ordinary person wants to learn about the Pyramids, there is no need for someone to recommend Graham Hancock to them as if otherwise they would have to read obtuse archeological-dig reports and disputes among scholars.