From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Re: a good dictionary
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 10:46:35 GMT

idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney) writes:
>
>>Kay, there ain't no such a book. "Webster's" is a
>>public-domain term that can be used by any dictionary
>>publisher. You're going to have a lot more specific and a
>>lot more knowledgeable about our American folkways if you
>>insist on playing Dump The Yank with anything like
>>effectiveness.
>
>I wasn't playing Dump The Yank <sigh>, really.  But I'm astonished to
>discover that "Webster's" is a public-domain term: poor old Noah must
>be spinning in his grave.  

There are, right now, at least four publishers of dictionaries with
"Webster's" in  the title: Merriam-Webster (who would be the only one
if it were a trademark), Webster's New World (Simon & Shuster),
Webster's 20th Century (World Publishing Co.) and even Random House has
a dictionary with Webster's in the title.  Personal opinion:

  1) Merriam-Webster always produces a good product 
  2) avoid Webster's 20th C
  3) I've heard good things about Webster's New World, but have never
     owned one.
  4) Random House's dictionaries are fairly good, but I haven't checked
     out the one with the Webster in the title.

There've been others in the past.  Once I saw a dictionary titled
"Webster's Imperial Dictionary" in the used book store.  I was tempted
to buy it, but for some reason did not.


>I don't have the thing to hand, but I do
>believe that I was referring to something labelled "Merriam-Webster",
>3rd edition.  Is that sufficient?

Webster's Third New International, currently the best American
dictionary.  Others will argue about its quality, but mainly because of
its descriptivist tendencies.  If you want something prescriptivist, get
a used copy of the 2nd Edition.  It hasn't been published since 1959,
though.

>
>Mais, revenons a nos moutons: *is* there an American dictionary of
>equivalent quality to the OED, or even the SOD?  If so, I'll buy it
>when I visit...

The OED is the best historical dictionary ever.  There was a Dictionary
of American English that was published between 1938 and 1944 that is
sort of the American equivalent.  In general, I understand that it's
about as good as the OED (its editor had worked on the OED so it should
be).  Unfortunately, it's not longer being published.  It's also mostly
of interest only to scholars.

However, those are historical dictionaries.  Most dictionaries are
synchronous.  That is, they attempt to show the language as it currently
is.  Currently, there's only one truly unabridged synchronous dictionary
being published and that's the aforementioned Webster's Third.  Random
House has one they call an unabridged, but it's really a bit too small
(it should be called a semi-abridged, but that doesn't look good on the
cover).

For smaller dictionaries, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate is excellent.
It's based on Webster's Third.  As I said above, I've heard good things
about Webster's New World (it's only published in the "college" size).

Personally, I'm not sure what you see in the Shorter Oxford.  The OED
is great, but I don't think it abridges well.

---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com