Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcsvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!rose From: rose@sdcsvax.UUCP (Dan Rose) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: literacy Message-ID: <1227@sdcsvax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 24-Nov-85 06:24:01 EST Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.1227 Posted: Sun Nov 24 06:24:01 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 28-Nov-85 04:27:45 EST References: <747@cyb-eng.UUCP> <9700105@uiucdcs> <167@ccnysci.UUCP> <774@cyb-eng.UUCP> <503@brl-sem.ARPA> <732@ecsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: rose@sdcsvax.UUCP (Dan rose) Organization: EECS Dept. U.C. San Diego Lines: 36 Keywords: Webster's In article <732@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: >> . . . It's listed without prejudice in both my Random House >> and Websters dictionaries. > >Minor point: "Webster's dictionary" is a generic name, as is "Roget's >Thesaurus." Many dictionary publishers having no connection with each >other produce "Webster's" dictionaries, such as the "Webster's New >Collegiate Dictionary" published by Merriam. I have even seen a >"Webster's Encyclopedia"! ---------- It's true that anyone can call themselves a Webster's dictionary or Roget's thesaurus, but there ARE two publishers which have a reasonable claim to the names: The "real" Roget's thesaurus is published by a company called something like Crowell, and can trace its origins back to Roget, who came up with the idea of classifying words by meaning rather than alphabetically. (The "new" alphabetically-indexed thesauruses (pl?) are self-defeating). Anyway, I believe the Crowell edition is edited by one of Roget's descendants. The "real" Webster's dictionary IS published by Merriam-Webster. I'm not sure of the relationship, but this one can somehow be traced back to Noah Webster's. Merriam-Webster publishes primarily two dictionaries, a big one ". . . Nth International . . ." and a little one ". . . Nth Collegiate . . ." The Third International, which came out sometime in the past twenty years (I think), created a furor by including many new words and spellings because the editors felt usage warranted it. Language purists predicted the demise of English As We Know It. It hasn't happened yet, but I worry about it every nite :-). The most recent Collegiate (9th?) has been criticized for having "mutually recursive" definitions. For this reason, many people prefer the American Heritage, though personally I disagree. -- Dan -- Dan (not Broadway Danny) Rose rose@UCSD