Wait! I had to watch The Story of English for one of my classes, and I loved it! (I remember especially liking the music at the beginning.) Is it that bad? My husband and I have been talking about buying the set.
It’s entertaining Helena but take what you read in it with a large grain of salt. Like the OP says about Mother Tongue, it’s loaded with “factual errors, urban myths, and folk etymologies”.
If you’re going to read about linguistics, really, you should read a book written by actual linguists.
Mrs. Byrne’s Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure and Preposterous Words defines “epicaricacy” as “taking pleasure in others’ misfortune.”
Of course, it’s not nearly as cool as “schadenfreude.”
I’ve got the paperback too, if you want a general linguistics book I defintely recomend the Cambridge Enclyclopedia of language, but if your looking for something that is English-specific the History of the English Language is probably a better bet.
There is a Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, also by David Crystal. I don’t have it, but I’ll bet that it’s also good.
I’ve got the Cambridge Encyclopaedia and it is wonderful. I love it very much indeed.
Even secondhand though it was an expensive book.
Bryson was cited as an authority by a couple of my editing tutors.
Primaflora, I got my paperback trade version for round about £10 UK. I seem to rember that you can get them very cheaply from book clubs.
Well, I’m bummed to find this out.
I can’t speak for the accuracy of the “sequel,” Made in America, but I can assert that it is way boring.
For better or worse, Bill Bryson is the guy who got me started on linguistics. I picked up that book in a secondhand store in Seattle my junior year of high school and got hooked on the field.
So I’m going to argue that therein lies his useful contribution. 
It obviously means “in the restaurant”.
Swedish too, then -
skadeglädje
The exact same word:
skade = schade
glädje = freude
I think the swedes got it from the Germans like we did.
All of Bryson’s books are rife with factual errors. I have cringed at some of the historical inaccuracies in his work.
He’s a humorist, not a scholar.
And its a damn shame that Mother Tongue is often published as legitimate science for the pedestrian reader. My library copy has a blurb by some journalist along the lines of “Now even I can understand linguistics thanks to the patient work of this great scholar!!!”
I wonder if Bryson has ever publicly faced complaints about the shodiness of Mother Tongue. Nah, he’s probably too busy counting his vast fortune like Mario Pei and Otto Jespersen were.
UnuMondo
Well, let’s be honest: Bryson is a One Trick Pony (though, to quote Tom Waits, he turns that trick right). The trick is insulting a variety of cultures in an amusing and perceptive way. However, his attempt to branch out into Linguistics is, as others have commented, toss. I couldn’t even bring myself to finish the book, and I’m not even a linguist; I dread to think how often a linguist would cringe when plowing through the tome.
I had a similar experience to andygirl. I honestly can’t remember if his was the first book I read on the subject of language and the history of English, but it was an early one. It helped get me intersted in the field of Linguistics. I haven’t read it in a long time. Generally I’d say that reading him didn’t ruin me for Linguistics. I had to relearn stuff, but I don’t think it was that hard.
What really got me hooked on Linguistics was “The Language Instinct” by Steven Pinker. A fairly easy read, but heavier by far than Bryson’s book.
Most of the Linguistics I have encountered has been synchronic rather than diachronic (synchronic= the study of languages as they occur at a certain period in time, which generally means the present. Diachronic= the study of a language or languages over time. Not much done by modern Linguists). This is good in that we can study languages in greater detail when we don’t have to rely only on historical records, but it is also bad in that we ignore the history of the language. Current books on the history of languages within a Linguistic framework are not so common (in my experience).
His travel books are amusing and enjoyable reads. His book on the English language is, as others have commented, only useful if you have it in the bathroom and run out of toilet paper.
He has a new book out, called (roughly) A Short History of Practically Everything, in which he attempts to summarize major events and thought-processes in science (astronomy, chemistry, geology, etc.) It’s a very enjoyable book, light and airy, and I haven’t found any glaring inaccuracies yet. However, I haven’t tried to fact-check everything, and his Mother Tongue book has me very very suspicious of this one.
My cute Japanese professor is what got me interested in linguistics. She just assumed we would know all about linguistics because we were taking a foreign language class. To impress her, I got a degree in it.
Bryson’s books are a personal interpretation chiefly intended to be a good read. It’s quite evident in his travel books that he is sometimes “creative” with the facts. I wouldn’t wouldn’t treat any of his books as academic text-books and I don’t think that any pretend to be.
Some of you are taking comments in the books too seriously that are obviously intended as tongue in cheek. Again, they are not text-books, he’s allowed to make jokes.
I’m looking forward to his new one, just as soon as it’s out in paperback.
Yeah but if the joke is that Eskimos have 100 words for snow, it’s not very funny if they actually don’t, now is it?