Well, concerning the two contending grammars, at the moment I only have Gildersleeve, but, after making a succint comparison with A&G as I found it here, it appears to me that there is no real victor. In fact, I decided to purchase A&G as well, so as to serve as a complement to Gildersleeve. As pointed out, it is often expedient to allow a subject to be illustrated by the light of different specialists, so as to allow the subject to be clarified in a more elucidating fashion by their corroborated efforts.<br /><br />What strikes me as odd however is that, and of course I may have overlooked, after a swift survey of this forum I found hardly any reference made to the rather elaborate, detailed and therefore excellent syntaxisbook by Woodcock. Quite contrary to the author's name, the book is hardly silly. It sheds a very clear light on basically every aspect of the syntaxis, but does considerably more than enumerate and succinctly explicate, such as a referencework does: it lavishly adstrues the syntactical concepts against the background of and by the (historic) development of the language. I'd say that Woodcock is inexpendable for him who desires to attain an understanding of the finer logic underlying the grammatical principles of the language.