|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Frequently Bought Together
Product Details
|
Product Description
From Amazon
For many speakers and learners of English, the word "Oxford" spells authority about language. The second edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English is no exception. Any dictionary which comes from Oxford University Press (whose origins lie in the Middle Ages, the foundation of the university and the dawn of printing) tends to be in a different league from its competitors.
Based on the "Oxford English Corpus", language databases, which amount to "hundreds of millions of words of written and spoken English in machine-readable form", this hefty single-volume dictionary has four million words of text. That includes 355,000 words phrases and definitions, 12,000 encyclopaedic entries and 68,000 explanations. The statistics are mind blowing.
Like all good dictionaries it's bang up to date. "Greasy spoon", "data smog" and "WMD" are all here, scrupulously glossed. So, of course are wonderful, old, near-obsolete words like "editrice" and "bouffant". Plenty of proper names get in too. Did you know that a "Queensland blue" is a cattle dog with a dark speckled body as opposed to a "Queensland nut" which is another name for the macadamia nut?
Like other new dictionaries the Oxford Dictionary of English provides boxed usage notes which point up, say, the difference between "pedal" and "peddle" or discuss the vexed old question of whether infinitives may be split. More unusual are the 14 detailed appendices on, for example, English in electronic communications, collective nouns and proof-reading marks. Most useful of all is probably the "Guide to Good English" which manages to be both admirably concise and immaculately clear. --Susan Elkin --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Review
The Oxford Dictionary of English is more than a dictionary. Every school should own one. El Gazette
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most helpful customer reviews
22 of 26 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars
Oxford vs. Webster,
By JohnG "JohnG" (St. John's, NL, Canada) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Oxford Dictionary of English (Hardcover)
I bought the Oxford to replace my twenty year old Webster's. I decided I needed a new dictionary when I wrote a story with the term 'Internet' in it. The editor questioned whether Internet should be capitalized - I looked it up and it wasn't in Webster, they didn't have the Internet back then, amazing!So I bought the Oxford which has the reputation of being the most authoritative dictionary, but I soon found some differences. In Webster, there is a pronunciation guide for every word, with the syllable stresses marked. This is invaluable if you are scanning poetry. Oxford only has pronunciation for uncommon and unusual words. So Oxford is not a good dictionary for English majors, or anyone studying metrical poetry. I also found that the explanation of usage for further and farther was much clearer in Webster than in Oxford. On the whole I found Webster to be better for common usage and has more variety of word forms. I haven't done a systematic comparison of the two dictionaries, but here some examples of words I have recently used in stories and needed to check: coffee maker, is it one word or two? or hyphenated? - it's in Webster but not in Oxford. skiff - 4 definitions in Webster, one in Oxford. snowmobiler, that is someone who operates a snowmobile - in Webster, but not in Oxford. damn well, is it one word or two? or hyphenated? - in Webster, but not in Oxford. runabout, as a small boat - 2 definitions in Webster, none in Oxford, although there is one definition in my 'Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors,' 2000. I did find some words in Oxford that were not in Webster: small-town, is it one word, two words or hyphenated? - in Oxford, but not Webster woodsmoke, one word or two? or hyphenated? - in Oxford, but not Webster On the whole, I find Webster to be a much more versatile and useful dictionary than the Oxford. Between the two of them I have most bases covered. The Oxford has more words in it, but also more words that I am unlikely to ever use, such as gymnure, gwyniad, gyttja, or gynmogene (an African hawk!) - and those examples are from one page of Oxford, so most of the Oxford is stuffed with rare and useless words. As a writer I need a dictionary based on common usage, not on obscure definitions. My next dictionary will be a Webster's.
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Canadians use Oxford / Americans use M-W,
By DBW (Canada) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Oxford Dictionary of English (Hardcover)
While the other reviewer's comments are somewhat insightful, as a writer he ought to have known - or at least acknowledged - the fact that Webster's Dictionary (i.e. The Miriam Webster Dictionary) is the American English standard. The Oxford English Dictionary is the authoritative British (and by extension, Canadian) English dictionary. As a Canadian, your primary dictionary should be an Oxford.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Gold Standard,
By
This review is from: Oxford Dictionary of English (Hardcover)
Simply the very best resource that any writer could want or need. A must-have that makes looking up words an educative and enjoyable experience. This dictionary will always have an important spot on my coffee table and in my office. (Yes, I own two of them!)
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
Want to see more reviews on this item?
|
Most recent customer reviews |
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
