Re: Dictionary

Subject: Re: Dictionary
From: lyndsey -dot- amott -at- docsymmetry -dot- com
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:21:20 -0500


Oja, W. Kelly writes:


I have two things I want to throw into the pot on this thread. First, I
really did not know there were dictionary "camps." If that is the case,
I suppose I belong to the camp that doesn't give, no, doesn't care.
Second, the only thing I can think of that would make the dictionary
John posted, questionable(?), is that the binding might be weaker or
less quality paper. I cannot imagine that the content would be any
different than the non-B&N edition. So, what's the beef?

Dictionaries differ enormously in quality! The first dictionary I ever owned was the Pocket Oxford Dictionary. I hate it because several words I looked up were not in it. I also own the 2-volume OED. I like this dictionary for resolving disputes about word origins and for discovering the entire known history of a word, but it weighs a ton and you need a magnifying glass to read the tiny text. I love my Scrabble dictionary, which appears to include all words and a nice two- or three-word definition. I love my rhyming dictionary, which helps me write poetry for children. I own an illustrated dictionary--not so good.
The Barnes and Noble Webster's dictionary is simply the result of a common practise among booksellers, which is to publish a list of words and their definitions and call it "Webster's." It is perfectly legal to do so since there is no copyright on the word "Webster's". Certainly, the binding of many of these Webster's dictionaries will be weaker and the paper quality poorer, but the main problem with them is that they don't provide much information. They are suitable for high school students and for people who don't work with words. As a writer, you need something better.
Merriam-Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary has at least one mistake: based on the pronunciation guide, the city of Nepean (near Ottawa, Ontario) is pronounced NEE-pee-uhn; however, it's actually pronounces nuh-PEE-uhn. I wonder if they've fixed this in later editions?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lyndsey Amott
www.docsymmetry.com
Winnipeg, MB R3G 2J3

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP FOR FRAMEMAKER TRIAL NOW AVAILABLE!

RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web. The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.



References:
RE: Dictionary: From: Oja, W. Kelly

Previous by Author: Re: phone interviews
Next by Author: Re: Dictionary
Previous by Thread: RE: Dictionary
Next by Thread: Re: Dictionary


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads