3 ms·

I read this good breakdown on 'The Mother Tongue' on everything2 sometime ago: https://everything2.com/title/The+Mother+Tongue%253A+English+and+How+it+Got+That+

• dcminter 11mo ago
  Hmm. Why should I take this critique as being any more accurate than Bryson, given that the writer says in so many words: "[...] I - someone who’s far from an expert at linguistics [...]" The rather sniffy observation about Wikipedia falls very flat as the book was written 10 years before Wikipedia existed! In fact Bryson wrote his book a good 20 years earlier than this critique so perhaps this huffy person has resources to draw upon that were not available in 1990. Not that I really expect Bryson's stuff to dot every i and cross every t - he's a humourist.
  • deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  • onraglanroad 11mo ago
    > Why should I take this critique as being any more accurate than Bryson Because you have access to various dictionaries and can easily verify it for yourself? Assuming the quotes from the book are accurate, that's really poor.
  • adammarples 11mo ago
    The writer doesn't claim that Bryson should have consulted Wikipedia, more that the myth that eskimos have 500 words for snow is so famous that the myth itself has a Wikipedia page dedicated to it. The discussion had been going on a long time when Bryson wrote this book, and I remember well being told this as a child in the 80's. To present what was either known as an urban myth or at least under a more nuanced discussion (they do, but it's due to how root words are easier to pluralise, not snow per se) is pretty lazy in a non-fiction book.