OED

If you feel that your question or comment doesn't fit into the categories above, feel free to post it here.
Post Reply

OED

Post by Archived Topic » Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:41 am

My OED (Oxford English Dictionary) is actually the 1884 NED (New English Dictionary, as it was at first called), and stops at volume 8. So "OneLook" is extremely useful to me for words after 'Shyzle', invented after 1884, and missed by OED.
One such is 'stenopaic', having a narrow aperture, chanced on in Whitaker's Almanac in regard to pin-hole cameras. And 'anopisthographic', written on one side only, in Britannica. Bit disconcerting to find sensible words like that only in 'Luciferous Logolepsy' or 'Forthright's Phrontistry'. Even OneLook omits quite a few, but boy, what a resource! And the ability to feed in prefixes and suffixes too.
Submitted by John Barton (New Plymouth - New Zealand)
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Topic imported and archived

OED

Post by Archived Reply » Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:56 am

John, If you want a dictionary that has both of those words and more (includes proper nouns and often has words which OneLook.com misses), I recommend The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary on CD-ROM ($19.95). It’s the best buy in the dictionary world that I have come across. I’ve been using it for years and it is always the first dictionary I consult when checking out a word. And the OED, although great in many respects, doesn’t provide etymology, which Random House Webster’s does.
_____________________

Ken G – August 15, 2004
Reply from Ken Greenwald (Fort Collins, CO - U.S.A.)
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Reply imported and archived

OED

Post by Archived Reply » Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:10 am

[quote] "And the OED, although great in many respects, doesn’t provide etymology ....." .. huh ?? .. I only have a mere concise and it provides this basic service .. please explain what you mean Ken ..
WoZ of Aus. l7/08/04
Reply from Wizard of Oz (Newcastle - Australia)
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Reply imported and archived

OED

Post by Archived Reply » Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:25 am

Wiz, "And the OED, although great in many respects, doesn’t provide etymology ....." You’re right. What I meant to say was ‘decent’ etymology. Viola should have caught that one, but she might have stepped out for her pedicure. The OED does many things very well (definitions. quotes), but I don’t think that etymology is one of them and I meant to imply that ‘The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary’ provides good etymology and the OED is probably the last place I would look, if at all (and I usually look in a lot of places).

ETYMOLOGY: “The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible” (American Heritage Dictionary)

In my opinion the OED does a relatively poor job of providing the above compared to say ‘The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary’ or the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary (which does an even better job than Random House – etymology is definitely their long suit). In my opinion, the OED etymologies are less complete and are often confusing – difficult to read and follow. Hopefully (the dreaded sentence adverb!), they will do an upgrade in this area in their third edition.

Ken – August 16, 2004
Reply from Ken Greenwald (Fort Collins, CO - U.S.A.)
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Reply imported and archived

OED

Post by Archived Reply » Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:39 am

Ken .. thanks for the clarification .. and I am aware that you consult MANY sources when answering .. lucky you have access to so much as we all benefit ..
WoZ of Aus. 19/08/04
Reply from Wizard of Oz (Newcastle - Australia)
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Reply imported and archived

ACCESS_END_OF_TOPIC
Post Reply