best english dictionaries
Michael Connors
I am confused. In the first post a writer asked about the second edition
of "Webster's New World Dictionary."In the second, another writer wrote
about "Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition." The two
dictionaries have nothing in common, having been published by different
publishers over thirty years apart.
The first dictionary mentioned was "Webster's New World
Dictionary." The first edition was published in 1953 by the World
Publishing Company in Cleveland Ohio. It was edited by David Guralick.
The second edition was published by Simon and Shuster (which
had purchased World Publishing) in 1970, and again edited by Guralick.
The third edition was published in 1988 and was edited by Virgina Neufeldt.
The major editorial change betweenthe second
and third editions is the addition of swear words. Guralick opposed the
addition of these words in early editions of this dictionary to protect the
sales of the dictionary to schools and other buyers around the country.
The defining style of Webster's New World tends to be simplier than
the Merriam Webster Tenth Colligiate, and there are fewer quotations. The
dictionary is updated every one to two years, and is kept up to date by a
permanent staff and a large and independent citation file. For more
information you may want to read Kenneth Kistner's review in his book about
dicitionaries.
As for my own opinion, the Webster's New World is second to the
Merriam Webster Tenth Colligiate in the college size dictionary market.
Those are the two I use. I don't have much use for the other two, American
Heritage and Random House.
Of the larger American dictionaries, the two I use the most are
Webster's Third New International, and the World Book Dictionary. Both
have a clear and direct defining style, in fact they both give over much
more space to defining than other dictionaries. Both dictionaries have a
large number of illustrative quotations, more than the other big American
dictionaries. Sidney Landau in his book "Dictionaries" states that the
World Book Dictionary "is the only American dictionary comparable in some
measure to" the Webster's Third New International. He goes on to write
that the World Book Dictionary's "definitions are simpler and fuller than"
Webster's Third New International "but the word list is not as extensive
and sense breakdown not as fine." In many instances the World Book
Dictionary, and not the American Heritage, is the most conservative and
prescriptive American dictionary.
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is an excellent dictionary,
and I wouldn't worry about missing too much. It gives a lot of space over to
defining, and it has a good amount of quotations, many which are not in the
Oxford English Dictionary. In the British desk dictionary section I prefer
the Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary to the Concise Oxford Dictionary
Ninth Edition. I do not like the defining style in the Ninth, which looks
to me too much like the defining style in the Collins Cobuild Dictionary.
I don't like the Chambers 21st Century Dictionary either, but the old
Chambers Dictionary was a good one.
MIKE
John Davies
In article <6gm8ht$k...@lotho.delphi.com>, Michael Connors
<jnglt...@delphi.com> writes
>I don't like the Chambers 21st Century Dictionary either, but the old
>Chambers Dictionary was a good one.
published, under the title "Chambers Dictionary". A new edition is
promised this summer. A very good dictionary indeed--I've worn out two
copies and have nearly destroyed a third.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Alex R. Cohen
Michael Connors wrote in message <6gm8ht$k...@lotho.delphi.com>...
...
>Those are the two I use. I don't have much use for the other two, American
>Heritage and Random House.
...
>In many instances the World Book
>Dictionary, and not the American Heritage, is the most conservative and
>prescriptive American dictionary.
American Heritage is not intended to be conservative. It purports to serve
as a steward of the language, including only those changes that make English
a more effective tool for communication.
Among its benefits is its use of usage notes and quotations to help indicate
the contexts in which a given word should be used.
The student newspaper of which I am senior copy editor switched to AHD3 this
semester on my advice. We had used Webster's New World, the dictionary of
reference of The Associated Press.
-Alex R. Cohen
Sr. Copy Ed., The Eagle, American University.
Michael Connors
In article <6gp9i7$n36$1...@newsfep4.sprintmail.com>, ac3...@american.edu
says...
Heritage Dictionary, but I am hardly alone. Thomas Cresswell published a
monograph called "Usage in Dictionaries and Dictionaries of Usage" in 1975
where he was very critical of the role of the usage panal in the American
Heritage Dictionary. He concluded that the role of the usage in the
dictionary was characterized by a kind of randomness which raised serious
questions about the objectivity of the dictionary itself.
Cresswell and Virgina McDavid reviewed the second edition in 1986
and said "there is no consistency in relationship between the way an item
is treated within an entry and any Usage Panel judgment regarding that
item." And later McDavid wrote "that about half the items [of a sample of
98 items compared between the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam
Webster's Dictionary of English Usage] the [panel] judges condemned what
actual practice reveals as established and standard." So much the usage
panel.
There are far more citations of actual usage in Webster's Third New
International, and the World Book Dictionary, and even in Merriam Webster's
Tenth Collegiate. If you are looking for facts about usage instead of
opinions you should go to these dictionaries.
MIKE
Bill McCray
>>In many instances the World Book
>>Dictionary, and not the American Heritage, is the most conservative and
>>prescriptive American dictionary.
>
>American Heritage is not intended to be conservative. It purports to serve
>as a steward of the language, including only those changes that make English
>a more effective tool for communication.
>
>Among its benefits is its use of usage notes and quotations to help indicate
>the contexts in which a given word should be used.
>
I recommend keeping on hand two dictionaries, one descriptive and one
prescriptive. Use the D one when you are trying to understand the
writing of someone you know to be a sloppy writer or are not sure of the
care he takes when writing. Use the P one when you are reading the work
of one you know to be a careful writer or when you are writing.
Bill