Guardian : Definitive dictionaries
Uncle Yap
Chambers, Collins or the concise OED - which is the most trustworthy?
This month the crossword editor speaks out in favour of keeping
several dictionaries to hand
Hugh Stephenson
Monday April 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
From time to time the suggestion is made that our puzzles should have
an "authorised" or "recommended" dictionary and that words should not
be allowed as solutions if they cannot be found there. Linked to this
is a rumbling undercurrent of complaint about increasingly being
forced to google to find the answers to clues. In this spirit, a
solver in Arizona complained last month that Gordius's puzzle No.
24,011 contained two solutions (VINOLENT and MERIMEE) that are not to
be found in either the Concise OED or the Chambers 21st Century
Dictionary.
It is true that VINOLENT does not regularly crop up in casual
conversation, but it is firmly there in Chambers as "addicted to
wine". (Clue: "With a drink problem one may lose direction and become
offensive" VI(N)OLENT) Other things being equal, I would not want a
word (eg vinolent) to appear as a solution in a Quick puzzle (or
probably a Quiptic) that was not in the Concise OED or the Chambers
21st Century Dictionary. But the first of these, as its name
indicates, has taken a quite restricted number of words from the
Oxford database and the second has a particular editorial purpose,
namely to illustrate modern English usage. For the Cryptic and Genius
puzzles something wider is required for reference.
Setters tend to gravitate towards the Chambers Dictionary (now into
its 10th edition). But I think that it would be too restrictive to tie
oneself exclusively to any one dictionary. All standard dictionaries
are only a selection from a larger menu and their editorial teams make
surprisingly different choices and exclusions. As a rule, I believe
that a word for a solution in a Cryptic puzzle should be found in one
at least of these three dictionaries: Chambers, Collins and the Oxford
Dictionary of English. But one should never say never. "iPod" has
already slipped into a Guardian puzzle and I would probably not be
bothered by "bovvered".
_____
MERIMEE raises a different issue. The clue was "Prosper in cheerful
time of year, as they say". The solution was a homophone of "merry
May" and is not to be found in any of the dictionaries on my desk
except the old 1979 Collins. It is not in the most recent (2003)
Collins, because that edition dropped people's names and Prosper
Merimée (1803-70) was the French writer, whose short novel "Carmen"
was the basis for Bizet's opera. Some puzzles (for example in the
Times) allow as solutions the names of sufficiently well-known dead
persons, but draw the line at the living. This at least has the merit
of being a clear rule, but it has the perverse result that Lennon,
John is available, but McCartney, Paul is not. (Both, incidentally,
are in the 1979 Collins and in the Oxford Dictionary of English,
though Merimée is only in the first.) But a rule that people may only
appear in solutions if their names can be found in the old Collins or
the new Oxford would produce silly exclusions: Gordon Brown, Simon
Russell Beale, Greg Dyke and Alan Rusbridger, for example. I find
myself driven to that refuge of the lazy mind: that each case must be
decided on its merits!
_____
Araucaria's March puzzle seems to have gone down well with Genius
fans, if the number of entries is anything to go by. The total of
correct entries was far higher than expected, given the complicated
"special instructions" for English/Italian transliteration that had to
be followed in clues and solutions alike. There were 228 by the
deadline. More surprising, given the fact that the print version of
the barred grid appeared with no bars, was the large number of correct
entries sent in on Day One - 16. The first clocked in at 11.34 from
Munich. There were three entries even earlier in the day, but each
contained an error. The most common mistake was with 38 across, when
the answer was given as INTERMEDIARY where INTERMEDIARI was required
by the convoluted rules.
There was no real indication that punters liked the experience of
having a barred Genius instead of a standard grid, though one
subscriber complained that she was irritated by it, since (to her) it
did not feel like a Guardian crossword. However, unless it becomes
clear that large numbers of people dislike barred puzzles, my view is
that it would be good to ring the changes by having one every now and
again. Unfortunately, with the present software, the two-stage process
that you have to go through to get a barred grid onto your screens for
downloading is clumsy, for which I can only apologise.
* Hugh Stephenson is the Guardian crossword editor. If you have any
comments or queries, please send them to
crosswor...@guardianunlimited.co.uk
Peter T. Daniels
> But a rule that people may only
> appear in solutions if their names can be found in the old Collins or
> the new Oxford would produce silly exclusions: Gordon Brown, Simon
> Russell Beale, Greg Dyke and Alan Rusbridger, for example.
Who??
Offramp
> Definitive dictionaries
>
In this spirit, a
> solver in Arizona complained last month that Gordius's puzzle No.
> 24,011 contained two solutions (VINOLENT and MERIMEE) that are not to
> be found in either the Concise OED or the Chambers 21st Century
> Dictionary.
Chambers is the one I use - even though they got on my nerves with
their "Chambers 21st Century Dictionary". Was this intended to deceive
people who remembered Chambers 20th Century Dictionary?
Colin Blackburn
No, it was meant to be a modern dictionary for the 21st century, ie
without the thousands of arcane words that makes the main Chambers
dictionary so good for crosswords.
Colin
Dr Ivan D. Reid
Chancellor of the Exchequer (possibly Prime Minister as early as
next week), an actor, former Director General of the BBC, editor of the
Guardian. I had to google for the actor...
--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
Offramp
Fair enough... But I have more beeves with Chambers.
I bought Chambers 2006 on 28th December 2006. I subsequently found out
that that book is or was also available on CD-Rom. This was available
separately for *another* £30. Do me a favour! I buy chess and
computing books and if a CD is necessary or possible they are included
with the book - it must cost the company just a few extra euros to add
one in a sleeve at the back.
The editions of Chambers seem to be appearing more often: 2003 and
2006. Some bookshops I went to still had only 2003; if anyone buys one
he is in for disappointment when he realises that for the same price
he could have bought a more recent edition. Chambers should've SORed
the whole back catalogue.
In any case Chambers has lost its Scrabble (R) monopoly (R). Collins
is now the standard source (apparently - I don't play it) and lost no
time in bringing out a huge range of Scrabble books. One day we might
see crosswords where Collins 2007 is recommended.
I should add that I really like Chambers 2006 as a dictionary -
weight, paper, style, font - everything except the 14-year-old-
schoolboy-designed cover.
Colin Blackburn
> Fair enough... But I have more beeves with Chambers.
>
> I bought Chambers 2006 on 28th December 2006. I subsequently found out
> that that book is or was also available on CD-Rom. This was available
> separately for *another* Ł30. Do me a favour! I buy chess and
> computing books and if a CD is necessary or possible they are included
> with the book - it must cost the company just a few extra euros to add
> one in a sleeve at the back.
A CD is included with a book if it contains extra data that is useful.
In the case of the Chambers CD it was a full dictionary offering a
full-search facility. You won't get the COED CD free with the COED
(though there is a bundled deal).
Also, the CD-ROM was for the 2003 edition. It is now, AFAIK, no longer
available with no plans for a re-issue at present. The CD had problems
that made it far from perfect. It was available for much less than the
cover price as the dictionary itself is.
> The editions of Chambers seem to be appearing more often: 2003 and
> 2006. Some bookshops I went to still had only 2003; if anyone buys one
> he is in for disappointment when he realises that for the same price
> he could have bought a more recent edition. Chambers should've SORed
> the whole back catalogue.
There's not much difference between the two dictionaries and the
crossword world is sticking to 2003. Azed, Listener and other tough
puzzles still use 2003 as their primary reference.
All dictionaries are being revised more frequently, that's computer
databases for you. I don't know why they felt the need for such a minor
revision at this stage though. Maybe it was a marketing step to get them
on the same time-line as another company?
> In any case Chambers has lost its Scrabble (R) monopoly (R). Collins
> is now the standard source (apparently - I don't play it) and lost no
> time in bringing out a huge range of Scrabble books. One day we might
> see crosswords where Collins 2007 is recommended.
That has more do do with licensing between Spears and Collins than it
has to do with the dictionary quality. The equivalent Collins Dictionary
has far fewer words than Chambers but their Scrabble dictionary includes
all the words in Chambers as well as new stuff. Competitive Scrabble
players invest a lot of time in learning valid letter patterns,
unlearning them is harder. The negotiations between the UK Scrabble
Association and Collins got those Chambers words kept in the list. Had
they not been the UKSA might not have adopted the Collins reference and
then Collins would have been the official reference in name only.
Colin
Flying Tortoise
wrote:
> Offramp said the following on 05/05/2007 06:12:
>
>
> That has more do do with licensing between Spears and Collins than it
> has to do with the dictionary quality. The equivalent Collins Dictionary
> has far fewer words than Chambers but their Scrabble dictionary includes
> all the words in Chambers as well as new stuff. Competitive Scrabble
> players invest a lot of time in learning valid letter patterns,
> unlearning them is harder. The negotiations between the UK Scrabble
> Association and Collins got those Chambers words kept in the list. Had
> they not been the UKSA might not have adopted the Collins reference and
> then Collins would have been the official reference in name only.
>
Actually the dread deed was done by Mattel when it took over the
Spears franchise and decided it needed to throw its weight about to
increase sales. It also stopped producing virtually everybody's
favourite board style at more or less the same time so further
indication of its sensitivity to the Scrabble community is probably
not required!
Chambers was the perfect partner for the Scrabble, supporting the game
in far more ways than merely providing dictionaries and word lists,
and editor Catherine Schwarz was often seen doing a Suzi Dent at
tournaments in Scotland. The decision seriously pissed off a lot of
tournament players (including myself) and more than a few (including
myself though not entirely for this reason) have withdrawn from
competitive play subsequently. Chambers remains the only dictionary I
give shelf room to with only the full OED permitted to provide
additional reference.