 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / June 2005Best UK English dictionaries
Using various standards including: + most popular + most widely used + most respected + most relied upon + most cited + most authoratative... Which UK dictionaries should I consult, and/or buy? Throw in some thesauri and jargon collections if you wish, anything online would also be appreciated. ------------------ Richard Rongstad VikingPhoenix.com - Definitions and Glossary The Lexicon at Vikingphoenix.com http://vikingphoenix.com/Internet/reference/defglos.htm Archive of Military Definitions of the Day http://vikingphoenix.com/military/mildefday.htm > Using various standards including: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Which UK dictionaries should I consult, and/or buy? My favourite is the Collins English Dictionary, not because it is the most authoritative but because I find it the most readable. It is also just about small enough to be comfortable to handle, although the one I had in 1981 was easier to manage with one hand. Another thing I like is that it contains lots of references to famous people and places, as well as quite a lot of scientific and technical terms. The Oxford English Dictionary is usually considered to be the most authoritative, although crossword compilers often cite Chambers, or has it been ousted by the Collins these days? > The Oxford English Dictionary is usually considered to be the > most authoritative, although crossword compilers often cite > Chambers, or has it been ousted by the Collins these days? Chambers and Collins are both useful for crosswords because of their frequent revisions. If you want etymology then OED is the best, but it is infrequently republished (next edition is currently scheduled for some time around 2020). The supplements help, but are annoying in the paper edition. You have to check two books for one lookup. The CD-ROM edition amalgamates the main dictionary and the supplements, and is probably the better buy if you have a computer. SOED is published more frequently than OED and is more up to date with current usage. On the other hand, it lacks a lot of what is offered by the full edition. You really have to decide what you want a dictionary for before you deciding which one is the best for you. Giles >Using various standards including: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Which UK dictionaries should I consult, and/or buy? Are size and cost an issue? The full OED comes in at twenty (?) volumes, and would be correspondingly expensive, but is likely to be the most respected and most authoritative. I believe that there's also a CDROM version.  SignatureJohn Hall "Distrust any enterprise that requires new clothes." Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) > Are size and cost an issue? The full OED comes in at twenty (?) volumes, > and would be correspondingly expensive, but is likely to be the most > respected and most authoritative. I believe that there's also a CDROM > version. There is also a Compact OED which is basically all the volumes of the OED reproduced in one large volume. It comes supplied with a magnifying glass which most people will probably find necessary. Axel > > Are size and cost an issue? The full OED comes in at twenty (?) volumes, > > and would be correspondingly expensive, but is likely to be the most [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Axel I've had the "Compact" version of the OED for years -- with its magnifying glass -- and its last Supplement. Quite scholarly with all the "Books Quoted", etc., just like its multi-volume parent. However, I recently acquired the Concise OED (Amazon, I think) for about US$20. It's a 2004 edition and is superb for not just a quick lookup, but it is very, very up-to-date. I highly recommend it. Sheesh, it even had the definition for "TCP/IP" in it. And you shouldn't need a magnifying glass. SignatureBest, Erick Andrews delete bogus to reply On Saturday, in article <sGi8lzkop2Rq-pn2-UcFVjr4buh29@HAL9000> > > > Are size and cost an issue? The full OED comes in at twenty (?) volumes, > > > and would be correspondingly expensive, but is likely to be the most [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > OED reproduced in one large volume. It comes supplied with a magnifying > > glass which most people will probably find necessary. When I first read Axel's posting, I thought to myself "someone ought to make sure that people don't get confused between the 'compact' and the 'concise' OED, since the latter is crap". However, before I've had the chance, I find your post: > I've had the "Compact" version of the OED for years -- with its magnifying > glass -- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it is very, very up-to-date. I highly recommend it. Sheesh, it even had the > definition for "TCP/IP" in it. And you shouldn't need a magnifying glass. Aaaarrgh! Whilst I've not seen the 2004 edition, every previous version I've ever seen of the "Concise Oxford Dictionary" has led me to think "Do OUP *really* intend to besmirch their reputation by publishing this useless book?" I doubt very much that the leopard has changed his spots. For example, on the rare occasion when I've been doing a cross-word and wanted to look up a word (which was obviously the correct answer) which was unbeknownst to me, if I've been [say] in a pub and asked to borrow a dictionary, and found that the only such publication to hand was the COD, then the word has *never* been in it. The COD includes all the words of "Basic English", but very little of any unusual words. So I would advise other readers to shun the Concise Oxford entirely; buy the SOED, or the Compact OED, or the full OED (perhaps on CD-ROM), if you can afford these publications. Otherwise, Chambers is probably the best single-volume dictionary of the English language (although I was quite impressed by a Collins when they first ventured into this field about 10--15 years ago). SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 > On Saturday, in article > <sGi8lzkop2Rq-pn2-UcFVjr4buh29@HAL9000> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > OUP *really* intend to besmirch their reputation by publishing this > useless book?" I doubt very much that the leopard has changed his spots. I, for one, would not denigrate any of the OED flavours. I still use my "Pocket OED" I bought in England in 1982. > For example, on the rare occasion when I've been doing a cross-word and > wanted to look up a word (which was obviously the correct answer) which [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > impressed by a Collins when they first ventured into this field about > 10--15 years ago). Well, I can understand your passion of one versus another. I don't give a fig about that; if I had deep pockets, I'd own and use them all, but I hope, like you seem to have, that I think I have, some wisdom to understand their differences and limitations. They're all useful. And if you REALLY want to get into etymology, philology, and word history, you might start with Eric Partridge's many tomes. The 2004 "Concise" OED is comparatively useful. And it's probably better than "cheating" with the fine crossword puzzle dictionaries out there. However, you can always go to a decent public library and use the full OED. I have done that on occasion. My only beef with the Oxford Press's CD version of the OED is that they only do a 'Windoze" version, US$600+ aside. Ugh! Best, Erick Andrews delete bogus to reply [who also has a Collins, Heritage, Random House, Webster's and more; plus some from the ancient sacred crypts of Egypt <g>] On Sunday, in article <sGi8lzkop2Rq-pn2-JlFv2JZSKndj@HAL9000> > My only beef with the Oxford Press's CD version of the OED is that they only > do a 'Windoze" version, US$600+ aside. Ugh! It's come down considerable in price in the past decade then (although one might explain this as being because it is less versatile). A friend of mine bought the full CD-ROM of the OED in 1995, at which time it was usable under Windows (v3.1 and '95), OS/2 (v2.1 & Warp V3), and Macintosh (don't know which version(s)). The price of this versatility was that it cost GBP999, which in those days would have been about USD1450. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 > On Sunday, in article > <sGi8lzkop2Rq-pn2-JlFv2JZSKndj@HAL9000> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The price of this versatility was that it cost GBP999, which in those > days would have been about USD1450. That's interesting because I haven't kept up to date, although once or twice a year I get an e-mail from the OED people. I've been tempted to reply to them about making the CD available on other platforms, but I contain my frustrations/anger not to reply. Maybe I shouldn't be that way. I figure it would only fall on deaf ears. Do you know anyone who has made it work, straightforwardly, on something other than MS (and not just Mac)? If so, I could probably justify USD 150 - 200, but not more. Yeah, but it's gotta be more than "8.3" filenames. An EMX solution might be OK. Thanks for your reply. SignatureBest, Erick Andrews delete bogus to reply > On Saturday, in article > <sGi8lzkop2Rq-pn2-UcFVjr4buh29@HAL9000> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > make sure that people don't get confused between the 'compact' and the > 'concise' OED, since the latter is crap". I think there's a potential for confusion here. The Compact edition of the OED is the full OED squeezed into one volume, complete with a magnifying lens. I really don't think it's appropriate to compare it with a normal one-volume dictionary! However, there is also a Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current Usage, containing about 145,000 definitions. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary contains 240,000 definitions - nearly twice as many. If you're dissatisfied with the Concise, you won't want to use the Compact. There's also a large single volume edition now called the Oxford Dictionary of English (originally the New Oxford Dictionary of English, with 355,000 definitions - again not to be confused with the full OED. >> > Are size and cost an issue? The full OED comes in at twenty (?) volumes, >> > and would be correspondingly expensive, but is likely to be the most >> > respected and most authoritative. I believe that there's also a CDROM >> > version. >> There is also a Compact OED which is basically all the volumes of the >> OED reproduced in one large volume. It comes supplied with a magnifying >> glass which most people will probably find necessary. > I've had the "Compact" version of the OED for years -- with its magnifying glass -- > and its last Supplement. Quite scholarly with all the "Books Quoted", etc., just > like its multi-volume parent. > However, I recently acquired the Concise OED (Amazon, I think) for about > US$20. It's a 2004 edition and is superb for not just a quick lookup, but > it is very, very up-to-date. I highly recommend it. Sheesh, it even had the > definition for "TCP/IP" in it. And you shouldn't need a magnifying glass. The Concise OED is good for everyday use. I must admit I don't the policy of the new editions in omitting the pronunciation of common English words. So I stick to my 5th edition. Axel |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.