Recommendations for a good dictionary

Eliot Rosewater

I'm going to get a good dictionary as I'm sick of looking up words on the net.

The primary function of the dictionary will be to look up unknown words in books I am reading. To give an example of the standard, these are some "difficult" words from the first chapter of Anthony Burgess' Earthy Powers: catamite, ganymede, emaciated, convexities, begonias, felicitations, obsidian. It's these kind of words I would be looking up.


The Oxford Dictionaries seem to have a good reputation. I was looking at both the Oxford Dictionary of English and the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, but until such a time as I get into a bookshop I don't know how big a one I will need.

I appreciate any help!

Eliot Rosewater

I'll probably go with the Concise Dictionary.

In comparing the two above, it just came down to a consideration of size (the price difference didn't bother me). The Oxford Dictionary of English has the big advantage of a lot of terms and encyclopedic entries, but it's a weighty tome and would be hard to transport around.

Maybe when I'm older I can buy the full 20 volume dictionary.

Donkey Oaty

According to Roger Lewis (hostile biographer) Burgess always kept the OED on his desk, along with the American Heritage Dictionary and a 1926 Webster.

I seem to remember Burgess writing about turning down a job for the OED once, on the grounds that he wouldn't be able to tolerate all those well-meaning but tedious letters from country vicarages suggesting new etymologies.

PS: Earthy Powers indeed - an improvement on the original!

Eliot Rosewater

Yes, the OED comes highly recommended from a lot of well known writers and academics. I'd say it would be interesting just to peruse it and find interesting words and the histories and the like. At nearly €1000 though you'd want to be really into that sort of thing!

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

PS: Earthy Powers indeed - an improvement on the original!

I don't understand. :pac:

Donkey Oaty

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

To give an example of the standard, these are some "difficult" words from the first chapter of Anthony Burgess' Earthy Powers...

Sounds more like Burgess than Earthly Powers!

pickarooney

As a matter of interest, what has turned you off looking up words on the internet?

Eliot Rosewater

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Sounds more like Burgess than Earthly Powers!

Ah yes, I think I get it.

pickarooney wrote: »

As a matter of interest, what has turned you off looking up words on the internet?

A number of reasons: I don't read in the same room as the computer, it's rarely on, and when I do check a reference online I usually get distracted with other sites such as this.

Eliot Rosewater

When I got my new dictionary, I was interesting to see how it compared to older ones.

Take the word homosexual. My new dictionary defines it so:

"homosexual - adj. feeling or involving sexual attraction to people of one's own sex. n. a homosexual person."

Now taking an old dictionary lying around the house that was published in 1958:

homosexuality - n. attraction between individuals of the same sex.
homosexual - n. a person thus perverted.

A quick glance at the definition of "perversion" in the same dictionary confirms the insinuation:

perversion - n. a turning from the true purpose; to misinterpret; to lead astray; to corrupt.

Clearly the makers of this dictionary (who's motto is, rather ironically, "in knowledge lies wisdom") saw no problem in stamping their morals on the definitions therein.

This is replicated in the word "catamite" The old dictionary didn't even include it, but a 1913 Webster defines it as a "boy kept for unnatural purposes". (If I didn't know what catamite meant, that definition would be none the more enlightening.) The Oxford Concise definition:

catamite - n. a boy kept for homosexual purposes.

Clear, to the point, and unafraid of the possible morality of that which is being described.


As a mathematician, I would be of the firm belief that truth must trump moralistic agendas. As well as showing a positive tendency towards correctness over subjective morality, I think these definitions also illustrate how society in general has become more tolerant.

pickarooney

The 'kept' part is odd. It implies coercion or prostitution. I thought a catamite was simply an underage male in a sexual relationship with an older one, theoretically consenting.

I honestly don't think society is very tolerant of the idea of kept boys.

Eliot Rosewater

From I understand, the boy is the lesser partner in the relationship, with the man assuming an almost paternal role. In that sense the boy becomes a little like a servant.

EDIT: By the way, I meant tolerant in that people aren't afraid to mention these things in an objective way.

nompere

Crossword setters (and solvers) tend to use The Chambers Dictionary. I keep my copy by my desk all the time. It has reputation for some slightly quirky definitions. Two well known examples are those for "éclair" ("a cake, long in shape but short in duration") and "middle-aged" ("between youth and old age, variously reckoned to suit the reckoner").

DublinWriter

The second edition of the full OED is the veritable sh*t.

I think online subs are available if you can't afford the astronomical price.