Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site sysvis.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!sysvis!george
From: george@sysvis.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: Dictionaries
Message-ID: <-7488351@sysvis.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 13:07:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sysvis.-7488351
Posted: Mon Feb 18 13:07:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 20:59:48 EST
References: <11900017@inmet.UUCP>
Lines: 20
Nf-ID: #R:inmet:11900017:sysvis:-7488351:000:1196
Nf-From: sysvis!george    Feb 18 12:07:00 1985


Re: Webster's vs. American Heritage dictionaries

I have found that when looking up words in totally new subject areas, that
Webster's (all varieties) "cross-defines" words, so that understanding 
(grokking) a true meaning and intent is well nigh impossible.  This, I be-
lieve is what you referred to when saying that the American Heritage Diction-
ary was "more fun".  Word "chaining" (looking up a word used in a definition
ad infinitum until all words are understood fully) is ridiculous in any
Webster's dictionary.  Verify this for yourself.  I believe that Webster's
obfuscates words in a very haphazard manner, thus "hiding" their true mean-
ings and proper usages.

In fact, the American Heritage Dictionary goes to great lengths to explain
each word's true meaning without using "cross-defines".  It also lists the
RELEVANT aspects of the etymology of the words and has, in my opinion, a
better pronunciation guide (a true "DICTION"ary).  Obviously, I will not use
Webster's dictionaries, IN ANY FORM, unless nothing else is available.  The
Oxford English Dictionary is my final authority when the American Heritage
fails to list a word.  I find that this a very meaningful approach...