nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/31/85)
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? 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". 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? 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.
andyb@dartvax.UUCP (Andy Behrens) (02/01/85)
> Does anyone know of other choices of "official" dictionaries by other > such organizations? [nrh@inmet] The Library of Congress Braille Transcription Service also uses the Webster's New World dictionary as their official dictionary. Braille transcribers need to refer to it to find the standard syllabification of English words. Andy Behrens {astrovax,decvax,cornell,ihnp4,linus}!dartvax!andyb.UUCP andyb@dartmouth.CSNET andyb%dartmouth@csnet-relay.ARPA
gary@arizona.UUCP (Gary Marc Levin) (02/04/85)
> What dictionaries are considered authoritative? Authoritative toward what end? OED is tops for historical perspective. Some are proscriptive, others descriptive. I have Webster's Seventh New Collegiate, the OED, and American Heritage; different needs, different books. > 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. I actually have two copies of the American Heritage, one with the thumb-index correctly placed and one askew as you describe. I think it's a bug, not a feature. -- Gary Levin / Dept of CS / U of AZ / Tucson, AZ 85721 / (602) 621-4231
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (02/04/85)
The term "knock-off Webster" is a little misleading. Any dictionary can call itself "Webster's," just as any playing-card rulebook can call itself "Hoyle's." G. C. Merriam publishes very good dictionaries. I recommend just about anything they put out. In particular, their _Dictionary of Synonyms_ is a classic. Any dictionary called "Webster's" not published by Merriam is probably poor. Conversely, most poor dictionaries are called "Webster's." You can judge for yourself. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
lazeldes@wlcrjs.UUCP (Leah A Zeldes) (02/06/85)
>> Does anyone know of other choices of "official" dictionaries by other >> such organizations? [nrh@inmet] Many magazines use Webster's Collegiate as a standard reference. The Associated Press Style Book cites Webster's New World, 2nd ed., another standard.
bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan) (02/06/85)
> > 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. > I actually have two copies of the American Heritage, one with the > thumb-index correctly placed and one askew as you describe. I > think it's a bug, not a feature. The Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary also has oddly placed thumb indeces, which I find extremely annoying, especially since this is an otherwise great dictionary. I think a non-indexed version is also available, and I would highly recommend either version to anyone with an interest in the American Language circa 1984. I really like this dictionary a lot. While I'm on the subject, I'd like to criticize two other dictionaries that I've had. I got them both in the mail from places like the Book of the Month Club and Publishers' Clearing House. Never buy a dictionary without looking through it first! The Oxford American Dictionary is one of the worst I've ever seen. It doesn't even give any etymology for the entries. It's also fairly incomplete--a lot of words just aren't there. For the words that are included, the definitions are sometimes not very good. There's another dictionary called Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, or something like that. It has a fake leather cover and gold leaf stamping, which is supposed to look good, but doesn't. It's one of those "Was $69.95 - Now $15.95" things the Publishers' Clearing House has been offering for years. This book is not published by Merriam-Webster, or any other reputable publishing company. The definitions in this dictionary are so obscure, especially for "sensitive" words like "rape" where they go out of their way to avoid letting you know that the term has anything to do with sexual intercourse. I happened across the entry for "Lesbian" (with a capital L) and the definition said something like "the women inhabitants of the Greek island Lesbos." Period. I still own the Oxford American Dictionary, but I never look at it. I decided a few years ago to use the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language as kindling for my fireplace. I tried burning it, and you know what? It didn't even burn very well, and the fake leather cover gave off a lot of smoke and an awful smell. -- Bob Kaplan {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!bob "All the clouds turn to words. All the words float in sequence. No one knows what they mean. Everyone just ignores them."
justin@utcs.UUCP (Justin Bur) (02/08/85)
In article <878@gloria.UUCP> colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) writes: > Any dictionary called "Webster's" not published by Merriam is probably > poor. Conversely, most poor dictionaries are called "Webster's." You > can judge for yourself. > -- > Col. G. L. Sicherman > ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel The Webster's New World Dictionary that several people have mentioned already is not published by Merriam (it's from Simon and Schuster) but it is certainly not poor. I prefer it to the equivalent Merriam (the Collegiate). But apart from the Merriam-Websters and the New World, I don't know of any good dictionaries called "Webster's". -- university of toronto computing services justin bur {decvax,ihnp4,utcsrgv,{allegra,linus}!utzoo}!utcs!justin utcsrgv becomes utcsri on 14 February
syn@uo-vax1.UUCP (syn) (02/15/85)
The topic certainly arouses passions among my friends--most of them fiction writers who don't actually "need" nice dictionaries, but want to have them around to play with. Considering the way language works for writers, one dictionary, no matter how authoritative, would never be enough. The best any dictionary can do is give you an idea of current usage in its own decade--and they all err on the side of conservatism. Where will you find "grok" listed? Damon Knight once proposed to write a "Gibberish--English, English-Gibberish" dictionary, but several sociologists had beaten him to it.
george@sysvis.UUCP (02/18/85)
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...
george@sysvis.UUCP (02/18/85)
<...> > 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
george@sysvis.UUCP (02/18/85)
<...> I do not have a "Webster's" anywhere in sight, so I cannot verify your problem with the index tabs. In my opinion, this index tabbing to the "middle" of a section, if truly universal in Webster dictionaries, is a further obfuscation of the English language as continually perpetrated by "Webster's".
gm@trsvax.UUCP (02/20/85)
What's all the fuss? I just use /usr/dict/words.....
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (02/26/85)
Perhaps it's as well to mention that various dictionaries called "Webster's" need not be related to each other; nobody has exclusive rights to the name, and anybody can put the name on their dictionary in the hope of getting you to buy it. It's exactly like "Hoyle's" on books of rules of games. So if you want to compare something to a "Webster's" dictionary, say which one. Mark Brader Personally, I use the Random House Unabridged.
mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (02/27/85)
I whole-heartedly agree with those who recommend *The Oxford English
Dictionary* and *The American Heritage Dictionary*. Before anyone out
there shells-out for an *OED*, they should be alerted that OUP is in the
process of computerizing it, and an improved version will thus be made
available in the next couple of years, incorporating the errata and addenda
into the main body, and adding some altogether new material.
In addition to the *OED* and *AHD*, let me recommend *Dictionary of
Early English* by Joseph T Shipley (Littlefield, Adams, & Co; $3.45) and
*Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure, and Preposterous Words* by
Josefa Heifetz Byrne (Pocket Books; $3.50).
I am so pleased to read the comments of other net-users who take
pleasure in a good dictionary!
TNX,
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernanchabot@miles.DEC (L. S. Chabot) (03/01/85)
The *OED* is much cheaper if you get it as a new subscription offer with the Book-of-the-Month Club for <$30 including shipping (and if you're not much interested in belonging to BoMC, you can fulfill the book agreement without spending too much--I made it for less than the price of an *OED* in a store). Offers to join BoMC with the *OED* choice can usually be found in magazines like The New Yorker or The New York Review of Books. (If you've given up hope of ever finding one, I've got a lot of back issues and could send you a page.) A friend of a friend had a copy of the *OED* on microfiche. Does anybody know about how to obtain such, how much it costs, and so forth? L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, LMO4/H4, 150 Locke Drive, Marlborough, MA 01752
cw@vaxwaller.UUCP (Carl Weidling) (03/04/85)
But what dictionaries define the word kludge? (I'm not even sure
how to spell it because I can't find it in any dictionaries.msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (03/10/85)
cw@vaxwaller.UUCP (Carl Weidling) writes: > > But what dictionaries define the word kludge? (I'm not even sure > how to spell it because I can't find it in any dictionaries. Not a dictionary in the proper sense, but a charming and amusing little book, is The Hacker's Dictionary by Guy L. Steele Jr. with Woods, Finkel, Crispin, Stallman, and Goodfellow. I paid $8.50 (paperback) in Canada, so it's probably $5 or $6 in the US. KLUGE, KLUDGE (klooj) Noun. 1. A Rube Goldberg device in hardware or software. 2. A clever programming trick intended to solve a particularly nasty case in an efficient, if not clear, manner. Often used to repair BUGS. Often verges on being a CROCK. 3. Something that works for the wrong reason. 4. Verb. To insert a kluge into a program. "I've kluged this routine to get around that weird bug, but there's probably a better way." Also "kluge up." 5. A feature that is implemented in a RUDE manner. KLUGE AROUND. To avoid (a problem) by inserting a kluge. The book makes no pretense to generality, but covers the slang used at certain university communities over a period of years. It's a revision of "the famous 'jargon file'". It was published in 1983. It's good. Mark Brader