|
Editorial Review Product Description
Now in print through its various editions for almost a century, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary is one of the most popular choices in Oxford's renowned dictionary line, selected by decades of users for its up-to-date and authoritative coverage of the English language.
This revised eleventh edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary presents the most accurate picture of English today. It contains over 240,000 words, phrases, and definitions, providing superb coverage of contemporary English, including rare, historical, and archaic terms, scientific and technical vocabulary, and English from around the world. The revised edition of the dictionary has been updated with hundreds of newwords--including sub-prime, social networking, and carbon footprint--all based on the latest research from the Oxford English Corpus. In addition, the dictionary now features an engaging new center section, with quick-reference word lists (for example, lists of Fascinating Words and Onomatopoeic Words), and a revised and updated English Uncovered supplement, which examines interesting facts about the English language. Sprinkled throughout the text are intriguing Word Histories, detailing the origins and development of numerous words. The volume also retains such popular features as the hundreds of usage notes which give advice on tricky vocabulary and pointers to help you improve your use of English. Finally, the dictionary contains full appendices on topics such as alphabets, currencies, electronic English, and the registers of language (from formal to slang), plus a useful Guide to Good English with advice on grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
Authoritative and up to date, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary offers unsurpassed coverage of English, perfect for anyone who needs a handy, reliable resource for home, school, or office. ... Read more Customer Reviews (17) 
Good news, bad news
Needing a supplement to my aging 1987 Webster, and in particular one reliably giving British usage,I originally bought the Cambridge International Dictionary of English.It's an excellent dictionary, in fact I would say *the* dictionary, for non-native speakers; the entries, explanations and descriptions of usage are wonderfully simple and clear.
But it simply didn't have in it enough of the words I looked up, so I sent it to a friend of mine in Spain who's learning English, and bought the Concise.
I must say at once that it was an immense improvement; in the three months I've had it, there's only been one word I've looked for that wasn't in it ("testudinal", which is found in William Manchester's biography of Winston Churchill: I think it means "relating to tortoises").I don't know if you can count FUBAR, which isn't listed (although SNAFU is).
It's also strong on modern technical terms (such as "blog") and slang expressions (such as "go postal").And whatever one's view of political correctness, one needs to be aware of it to be absolutely certain of avoiding offence.Here again I found the Concise exemplary.
However, I am not so ecstatic about some of the other features.
One is the treatment of pronunciation.I accept that it's better to use the IPA than some half-baked phonetic equivalent, and I'm gradually getting used to it.But "the principle followed is that pronunciations are only given where they are likely to cause problems for the native speaker of English".So if you're not a native speaker -- or you're a child who hasn't yet attained an adult vocabulary -- then, presumably, screw you; you'd be better off with the Cambridge.Further, although US spellings are provided, US pronunciations are not, only RP ones; thus no cognizance is taken (for instance) of the difference between UK ad-'dress and US 'ad-dress.And although two pronunciations of "laboratory" are given, there's no indication of which is which.
I found the Concise unhelpful on some aspects of usage.When did "ætiology" become "aetiology", and when did "B.B.C." become "BBC"?
More alarming is a syntactic sloppiness that pervades the whole thing.Of course every dictionary must strike a balance between prescriptivism and descriptivism*, and by and large the Concise does a good job (as in the entry for "decimate", for example).The policy on possessives is explicitly stated in the usage note for "they": 'It is now widely held that the traditional use of "he" to refer to a person of either sex is outdated and sexist; the alternative, "he or she", can be clumsy.It is now generally acceptable, therefore, to use "they" (with its counterparts "them", "their" and "themselves" instead. [...]'.But this means that "a pupil should leave their coat in the lobby" is acceptable, although it looks very odd to me.I guess I'm just old-fashioned.
"Façade" is presented without the cedilla, even as an alternative spelling, which looks to me outright illiterate.
Among other oddities are the use of "which" instead of "that" in restrictive clauses, and (on the last page) "hyphened" instead "hyphenated".
Some of the entries seem to me slightly off-centre, too, e.g. "legless" is defined as "extremely drunk", which is true as far as it goes. But specifically it means "too drunk to stand"; if you can still stand, you aren't legless, however drunk you are."Rabbit" as a Cockney term is said to come from "rabbit and pork" = "talk", but as a Londoner I've always understood it to be from "rabbit's paw" = "jaw".
But by and large I'm happy with the Concise.
*In this connection, it's perhaps a sign of the times that the spelling "miniscule" has now overtaken "minuscule" (p.1700).
UPDATE
On the subject of the abbreviations and digraphs, I availed myself of the invitation to Ask Oxford, and received from a lady the following kind reply (in part):
"I have checked all editions of the Concise Oxford Dictionary back to 1911, and was interested to find that this publication has never used the ae and oe digraphs*, though they were and still are to be found in the full Oxford English Dictionary.Of course they were never available on standard typewriter keyboards, and rare on early computers, and I suspect that this hastened their decline.In British English there has been a strong trend towards simplification in the past twenty years, and any unnecessary complication is out of favour; to use digraphs would not be considered incorrect, but fussy.
"The same process has affected punctuation, which is now lighter.I see that the initialism 'B.B.C.'appeared thus in the sixth edition of the Concise (1976) but as 'BBC' in the seventh (1982): both were edited by J.B. Sykes."
* I tried to type the ae and oe ligatures, but the Amazon codepage can only manage æ -- the other one comes out as "ae" instead of "oe"!
PM
Not necessarily inferior to full OED
Although, I was disappointed to find that the Concise OED was considerably smaller in height and width dimensions than their foreign language dictionaries (e.g., Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary, or Oxford Spanish Dictionary), it is still pretty good, and in some ways is better than the full Oxford English Dictionary. Take for example the word Paradigm. I'll give just the meanings offered by each dictionary.
-------------------
Concise OED (11th ed., rev.):
Paradigm --
-- 1. a typical example, pattern, or model of something.
-- 2. a world view underlying the theories and methodology of a scientific subject.
-- 3. [Linguistics] a set of items that form mutually exclusive choices in particular syntactic roles. Often contrasted with Syntagm.
-- 4. [Grammar] a table of all the inflected forms of a word.
-------------------
Full OED (2nd ed.):
Paradigm --
-- 1.a. a pattern, exemplar, example.
---- b. attrib. as 'paradigm case', a case or instance to be regarded as representative or typical.
-- 2. Rhet. (In L. form) See quot. Obs.
-- 3.a. An example or pattern of the inflexion of a noun, verb, or other inflected part of speech.
---- b. transf. and fig.
-------------------
In the full OED, each definition is followed by examples that go back even as far as 1483. Only in the last case, 3b, do we find anything approaching definition 2 of the Concise OED (the 'world view' definition). It is in quotes referring to Wittgenstein, Chomsky, Kuhn, etc. They are fascinating, but if you were looking the word up, because you were trying to read something else, instead of a dictionary, then the full OED makes you work too hard the extract the word's most common usage.
Excellent!
Having a thirst for the knowledge and an interest in etymology, the Oxford English Dictionary is the perfect tool to quench my thirst.I highly recommend this dictionary to anyone who has an interest in etymology and wanting to strengthen their vocabulary.
Never received my dictionary
I've never received my product.When I contacted the shipper to tell them, they gave me a delivery verification and that was that.It was never in my mailbox!I did receive the Thesaurus I ordered at the same time.I finally just gave up in frustration.
Sterling Desktop Reference inadequate for learners
As a desktop reference, this dictionary has no peer.Compared to other dictionaries of similar size, it is simply the best by a long shot.It is authoritative enough to have its definitions used in a court of law.The Editors tell us it contains 75,000 root words compared to the usual 25,000 root words, because infrequent and rare words are likely to be crucial in particular contexts when they crop up. No wonder I have never had the frustrating experience of a futile search for a word when using previous editions.
Each succeeding edition brings to it changes in format.The current 11th 2008 revised edition has all supplementary material relocated from the back end to the "Centre Section" after the letter "L". It is not the first dictionary to do this, but its 24-page "Centre Section" makes fascinating reading.
1. English Uncovered.Benefits of data collected by Oxford are divulged.The list of 100 commonest words revealed are "the" #1, "I" #10, to "us" #100. Lists of commonest nouns, verbs and adjectives are included.Interesting trivia includes the words with most meanings as "set" (156), "stand" (104) and "fall" (101).Subtle shifts in spelling include "just deserts" to "just desserts" (58% actual usage); buck naked 53% to butt naked 47%; and"strait-laced" being overwhelmed by 66% actual use of "straight-laced". "Miniscule" changes are overtaking correct forms like "Minuscule".
2. Fascinating words.Absquatulate, adscititious, afreet start this 4 page list."callipygian" having shapely buttocks, "ecdysiast" strip tease performer, "vexillology" study of flags, "toxophilite" archery student, join words like ylem, sudd, flews, stiction, plew and yes, floccinaucinihilipilification and pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.I am fascinated.
3. Collective nouns.The usual "pride" of lions, "fling" of dunlins, "murmuration" of starlings, "school" of whales, is usefully retained, although it could be more exhaustive.
4. Imitative Words.2 pages of onomatopoeias.I have not come across such a list in an Oxford.Vroom, whoosh, zoom.
5. Foreign Words and Phrases. This is an extremely useful list of frequently encountered foreign terms.The absence of a connected pronouncing key is a most regrettable omission, as this is precisely where a pronouncing key would be most appreciated.Nothing fancy, and nobody would argue the inclusion of: a cappella, alfresco, au fait, je ne sais quoi, ménage a trios, schadenfreude, verboten and zeitgeist.Delightful section.
6. Guide to Good English.Same old, same old.
There are more "Usage" bubbles in this edition.After "discreet", a tinted bubble explains the difference with "discrete".It is "Fowler's Modern English Usage" appended to the apposite words.Naturally, there are more words and material with every new edition.I suspect the similar number of pages as the preceding edition was achieved by reducing the font size of the print. For the huge number of entries, there would be no examples of usage in sentences, nor any illustrations.The International Phonetic Transcription is used and is consistent with its increasing popularity over the Merriam Webster pronouncing key.
Etymology is the best I have seen. Curiously, "Viagra", reputed to be a portmanteau of "virility" and "Niagra" (fluids emanating like Niagra Falls is hopeful optimism) in the 10th 2002 edition, reverted to "unknown origin" in the 11th 2008 edition. The commonly encountered "Cialis" (CIncinnati/MinneApoLIS) is not yet recognised by Oxford.
This dictionary sounds almost too good to be true.Bear with me as I explore possible shortcomings.
The Concise Oxford is not for students of English.It is for those who are way, way, way past the early learning stage.This sterling reference work is quite unsatisfactory as a learning tool.It is more of an aide-memoire and for quick reference when wandering into unfamiliar disciplines.The Paperback Oxford or the Oxford Advanced Learner's would better serve students.Collins, Cambridge, Longman, Chambers, MacMillan and other competitors publish dictionaries with the specific aim of educating students, replete with examples of usage, mnemonics, pictures, and so on. Some throw in a thesaurus.
My 2002 Concise Oxford has these supplementary materials, now deleted from this 2008 edition:
1. Countries of the World, capital cities, currencies, etc,
2. Alphabets (Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian),
3. Accents and diacritical marks,
4. Phonetic Alphabet: Alpha, Bravo, Charlie to Zulu,
5. Weights and measures, British and American and metric conversions,
6. Metric prefixes, like nano-, pico-, femto-, atto-,
7. SI units
8. Proofreading marks,
9. List of two letter words, like "mu", "re" (musical note), "ye",
10. Words with Q not followed by U, like tariqa, qiviut,
11. SMS abbreviations, emoticons.
Some dictionaries include a map of the world, Nobel Prize winners, Famous People, Common Proverbs; but this may be going over the top.Really, where else can you realistically expect to find such handy nuggets of critical information at your fingertips other than your desktop dictionary.A small investment of 20 to 30 additional pages to the Concise Oxford will fix these omissions found in various previous editions.
Various previous editions of the Oxford had different combinations of these useful Dictionary-related appendices:
1. The Periodic Table, chemical symbols with atomic numbers and weights, (useful for following "Breaking Bad" TV series),
2. Books of the Bible,
3. Geologic Table, placing words like "Jurassic", "Silurian" in context,
4. Common Geometric formulas,
5. Musical notations, dynamics, indicators and Orchestral layout,
6. States of the United States, capital, informal name (North Dakota, Bismarck, Peace Garden), and similarly for Canada, South Africa, Australia, even India,
7. Braille, Morse Code, Manual alphabet for the hearing impaired,
8. Presidents of the United States of America (the one after this publication is Obama :), and the President after Obama might still make it to the next edition), Kings and Queens of England and the UK, Prime Ministers of important countries
9. The Solar System, principal moons; Taxonomy,
10. Zodiac Signs, Chinese Zodiac (2010 is the year of the Tiger), Wedding Anniversaries, birthstones.
A list of Shakespeare's works, Greek and Roman deities, and a tabulation of military ranks would be welcome.
Compared to 1700 pages, the addition of principal appendices would take up another 20 to 30 pages, tops. Some words make more sense in the context of lists, charts, tables and diagrams, yet we would still be nowhere inching towards an encyclopaedia.
This Concise Oxford is printed in UK.The paper looks cheap compared to older editions with sturdier paper.Yet my yellow marker highlightings cannot be seen from the reverse pages.The binding gets shoddier with each edition.If it remains on the desktop, it will come to little harm.It has a Bargain edition feel to it, and it does not inspire confidence that it will last a lifetime - until the next edition perhaps. Bring it around, as in a school bag, and its gradual destruction is assured.Far cheaper dictionaries from other publishers feel more solid, with paper much more pleasing to touch.
If "Concise" led to the notion that this dictionary is small, check the dimensions, as it is larger than expected.Very few books are two and a half inches thick.I would like to see the inclusion of more supplementary material so it will be the only reference book on my cluttered desktop.
In spite of perceived shortcomings, the Concise Oxford is the one I want to occupy that precious real estate on my desktop.
... Read more |
Worthwhile purchase
Keep looking