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: <-7488349@sysvis.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 13:39:00 EST Article-I.D.: sysvis.-7488349 Posted: Mon Feb 18 13:39:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 21:00:41 EST Lines: 92 Nf-ID: #N:sysvis:-7488349:000:4657 Nf-From: sysvis!george Feb 18 12:39:00 1985 <...> > A topic that's come up in other newsgroups (notably net.politics) > is dictionaries. What dictionaries are considered authoritative? > A friend of mine who is a very precise speaker referred to the > "knock-off Websters" when I found a dictionary that contradicted > him (somewhat) on a fine point involving "fewer" and "less", and > suggested that only the dictionaries marked "Merriam Webster" are > "real" Websters. Are the real Websters better than the fake ones? The Oxford English Dictionary is recognized as the most "authoritative" dictionary extant. Webster's (even Merriam) notwithstanding. > I've found my own dictionary "Webster's New World Dictionary of the > American Language, Second College Edition", quite serviceable, but not as > fun to use, somehow, as an old "American Heritage". 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 this a very useful and quick approach. > When I was given the dictionary, I was told that the "New World" was > used by UPI as its official dictionary. Does anyone know if this means > anything more than UPI getting an especially good deal from a publisher? > Does anyone know of other choices of "official" dictionaries by other > such organizations? Most business organizations do not retain lexicographers to give VALID opinions of what dictionaries they should use. Most decisions are made much as you suspect, a good deal, or a friend's recommendation. > One "feature" of the dictionary is that the index inserts (so you can > turn directly to the "H"'s) do not begin where the corresponding letters > begin. Opening the dictionary to the position corresponding to the > insert marked "C" puts one on the page (some distance into the "C"'s) > beginning with "commemorate". I find this sort of annoying -- does > anyone know if this is now standard practice or more useful than > annoying to people in general? I gather the idea here is to put you at > the first "dividing point" for some sort of partition search. If you will read the section in your Amer. Heritage Dictionary called "How to Use This Dictionary", I believe that it will shed some light on the "strangeness" of the index tabs. QUOTE WITHOUT COMMENT DEPT: > Recently I've been studying Esperanto (the "Universal Second Language"), > and have wanted to compare Esperanto words to similar English words. > (E.g., montri (to show) is related to demonstrate. Read net.nlang for > more information). > I have been quite impressed with the American Heritage Standard dictionary > for its etymologies and especially for the section on Proto- > Indo-European roots in the back. (I don't think the collegiate version > has the Indo-European section.) For each inflexion of each root, several > derived modern words (mostly English) are listed. Great fun! > > There are also some wonderful articles on the history of English and > Proto-Indo-European in the front of the the dictionary, along with an > article on using computers for language study. > > -Neal McBurnett, ihnp4!druny!neal, 303-538-4852 I would be very interested in hearing flames/comments from any of you who wish to participate. I would appreciate your posting these to the net as a response to this note so that others may gain the wisdom of your own experiences. The views stated here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. Regards.... George E. Robertson Tandy Research & Development 900 Two Tandy Center Fort Worth, TX 76102 (817) 390-3330 ...!ihnp4!sys1!sysvis!george ...{convex,ctvax,microsoft}!trsvax!sysvis!george