Customer Reviews

Diccionario de uso del Espanol (Spanish Edition)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

For awhile now, I've used two Spanish dictionaries -- Collin's Complete and Unabridged Spanish-English and Dictionario práctico del estudiante. The former is a too-large dictionary that can't practically be held in the hand, but rather must be laid upon a desk. The latter is a small, but fairly inclusive dictionary from the publisher Santillana. The Dictionario práctico is a Spanish-Spanish dictionary done in an informal, colloquial style much like the María Moliner that I have just purchased. I'll compare the three, though I plan to focus on the MM.

I'll begin by saying that if I were to own just one of these three dictionaries, it would be the Collins dictionary. I believe that the Collins dictionary is the most comprehensive of the three. Neither the DPdE nor the MM pretends to be comprehensive. There is a pricey, two-volume edition of the MM that might contain more entries than the Collins, but it is the abbreviated MM that I am reviewing here. The Collins also has a great advantage in being a bilingual dictionary, since the definitions in any bilingual dictionary can be brief. For example, consider the definition for the Spanish word vida:

Collins: life
DPdE: Condición de los seres orgánicos, por la que estos crecen, se reproducen y responden a los estímulos. 'Las piedras no tienen vida.'
MM: Facultad para crecer, renovar la propia sustancia, reproducirse, etc., que tienen los animales y las plantas: 'Los seres orgánicos son los dotados de vida.'

A person trying to learn Spanish consults his dictionary in order to discover the
meaning of a word. A bilingual dictionary serves this purpose best. However, I have purchased my two Spanish-Spanish dictionaries not simply in order to find the meaning of a word, but also in order to increase my vocabulary. And so, when another reviewer here complains about "extended definitions" in the MM, saying that he would prefer synonyms, I can see that his purpose in buying the MM was different than mine. Yes, the definitions in the MM can be wordy. But if your purpose in buying the MM is to read Spanish and expand your vocabulary, then the extended definitions in the MM will be just what you're looking for.

I want to comment briefly at this time on the physical properties of the MM -- on the quality of its paper, the legibility of its print, etc. I had difficulty, just now, distinguishing the accent in the word estímulos, as that word appears in the DPdE. The font size in the DPdE is rather small. The font size in the MM, on the other hand, is large and easy to read. In all other ways, though, the MM is less well made than the DPdE. The paper in the MM is so thin that words on the reverse side are discernible. The paper is unpleasantly white and bright. I prefer the sturdy, slightly grey paper of the DPdE. All three books are sewed. This is important, because the pages in a much-used book will eventually fall out if they are not sewed. I mentioned before that the Collins is so large that it must be laid on a table. Same goes for the MM. It's 2 1/2 inches thick. (6 1/2 cm.) Both the Collins and the DPdE use color (blue) to distinguish the guidewords at the top of the page and the entries themselves. This makes for an attractive and legible page layout. The MM does not use color print. Instead, it sets its guidewords in caps that I find difficult to read. MM entries are in boldface. This layout is unappealing, I feel. While the thin, bright paper of the MM and the uninteresting monochromatic layout are disappointing, they are not real problems. A real problem, though, are the too-narrow inner margins of the MM. Because the inner margins are so narrow, it's hard to read the print near the center of the book.

The samples that I have presented above -- the three definitions for the word vida -- begin to suggest the differences between the two Spanish-Spanish dictionaries. The definitions in the DPdE are generally more succinct and expressed in simpler language. The DPdE offers more examples of usage. I find the entries in the DPdE, in general, superior to those in the MM. However the MM is more comprehensive than the DPdE, and that is the bottom line here. The MM wins out because it has more entries than the student dictionary.

It's unfortunate that the publisher Gredos does not allow you to browse its dictionary online. As of 4/24/2010, though, you can find a link to what I think are samples from the CD-ROM version of the dictionary at diclib dot com. This online version seems more comprehensive than the abbreviated version of the dictionary that I am reviewing here, but the online version is difficult to use. Still, it will give you an idea of the MM's style. I'll provide a few more examples here that will illustrate the differences, in content,
between the two Spanish-Spanish dictionaries that I am reviewing. From each dictionary,
here's part of the entry for the Spanish word casco:

DPdE: 1. Pieza concáva de metal o de otro material rígido, que sirve para proteger la cabeza. 'Se prohíbe entrar en la obra sin casco.' 2. Cuerpo de una embarcación o una aeronave, sin los palos, velas, máquinas y demás equipamiento. 'Una vía de agua en el casco provocó el hundimiento.'

MM: 1. Trozo de vasija rota. 2. Pieza de metal para cubrir y defender la cabeza, que se usaba en la guerra, formando parte de la armadura o suelta. Pieza redondeada, de forma semejante, que se emplea para distintos usos, en la guerra y fuera de ella; por ejemplo, el de los bomberos o el de los motoristas. . . 5. Cuerpo del barco, sin la arboladura, la maquinaria, etc.

It was definition 2 in the DPdE that gave me the meaning of the word casco as I encountered it in the Spanish novel I am reading now. Ship's hull. I think it odd that the MM feels that trozo de vasija is the primary meaning of the word casco. Well, I'm not Spanish, but I have my doubts. Both the Collins and the DPdE agree that the word casco is most often used to signify helmet.

I checked to see that I could find Latin American words in the MM. I was disappointed to discover that the Spanish word tuna, meaning cactus pear, is not in the MM. However, every other Latin American word I looked for was there in the MM. And the MM did a better job at defining durazno than did either of the other two dictionaries. Both the DPdE and the Collins tell us that durazno is a synonym for melocotón. Well yes, usually, I suppose. But I am pretty sure that the jugo de durazno that I ordered every day for lunch in Santiago was apricot nectar. And, according to the MM, durazno is -- well -- either or both fruits:

MM definition for durazno: No está bien delimitado el uso de este nombre: en unos sitios llaman así a los melocotones; en otros, a los albaricoques; también se aplica a alguna variedad determinada de una u otra de esas frutas.

When I looked up the word coletazo, I was reminded of the limitiations of a small student dictionary:

DPdE: --> cola
MM: 1. Golpe dado con la cola. 2. Manifestación violenta de algo que se está terminado: 'El mal está vencido, pero aún puede dar algún coletazo.'

The definition for cola, to which I had been referred in the DPdE, did not help me understand the meaning of the word coletazo.

I was disappointed with the MM's definition of the word eritreo:

DPdE: De Eritrea (África).
MM: 1. Del Mar Rojo, llamado mar Eritreo. 2. De Eritrea (provincia de Etiopía).

Provincia de Etiopía? According to Wikipedia, Eritrean independence was recognized by most countries in 1993. The MM has had 17 years to correct this entry, but hasn't done so yet.

Here's another definition -- again, geographical -- that the MM doesn't get quite right. The word is esquimal.

DPdE: De un pueblo de raza mongólica que habita, en pequeños grupos dispersos, la margen ártica de América del Norte, de Groenlandia y de Asia.
MM: Se aplica a un pueblo que vive junto a las bahías de Hudson y de Baffin, a los individuos de él y a sus cosas.

It's curious that the MM wants to limit the range of the Inuit to the smaller geographic area.

The MM really let me down in the following case. I wanted to verify the meaning of the word altillo in the following context:

". . . tomábamos refrescos en el rincón más oculto de nuestro bar favorito. Era un altillo casi sumido en la oscuridad . . ."

You decide which is the most appropriate definition here:

MM: 1 Armario construido en la parte alta de un muro. 2 Maletero, compartimento más alto de un armario.
DPdE: Habitación situada en la parte más alta de una casa.
Collins: 1 Small hill, hillock. 2 Attic. 3 Mezzanine.

I find that the DPdE is often more accurate than the MM -- when the DPdE offers a definition for the word I seek to decipher.
(The MM, being the larger of the two dictionaries, is more likely to have the word I am looking for.)
The definitions in the MM, though, are occasionally quirky or inaccurate.

At the back of most Spanish dictionaries, including the DPdE, one finds a list of verb tables that help the learner conjugate regular and irregular verbs. The DPdE, in its tables, features 64 conjugation types. The Collins proffers 62. The MM does something different. It conjugates the verb in the body of the book, where the verb is defined. Or it points the user to a verb of the same type, where that other verb is defined and conjugated. I think I prefer the tables, because they are easier to read.

Finally, a word about etymologies. I wish the MM had not decided to jettison the etymologies that appear in the comprehensive two-volume edition of the dictionary. Most users, I imagine, find these of little interest. Hence the practical decision to omit them in the abbreviated edition. I would have loved to see them.

There you have it. Each dictionary has its good and bad points. If the DPdE were more comprehensive and had larger print, I would prefer it to the MM, hands down. The fact that the MM is more wordy than the DPdE doesn't bother me. Its verbosity forces the reader to learn new vocabulary. Isn't that why a non Spanish-speaking learner looks to acquire a Spanish-Spanish dictionary? Consider the MM's definition no. 5 for casco, above. It includes the word arboladura -- a word I am likely never to need, but pleased to meet. Clearly, it derives from the word árbol -- a word I do know and use. I can presume that the word arboladura describes mast and spar -- all the wooden parts that support a ship's sails. Well, we who love language and language learning derive satisfaction from such epiphanies. The MM is almost 1800 pages long. It offers plenty of such experiences for the language enthusiast.

I find this dictionary very useful for the obvious, i.e. definitions, but was very disappointed that it didn't give any etymology. I've looked and looked for a Spanish etymological source, with no luck. If anybody knows of one, I'm all orejas!

A welcome upgrade to a classic. Thoroughly modern interface which is now Mac friendly. Exceptional scholarship and an essential for all those needing definitive answers regarding how to use Spanish language properly. An excellent tool for students looking to improve their language skills, the Diccionario de uso del espanol by Moliner especially provides writers, linguists, translators, and other professionals an outstanding reference work that will prove to be indispensable. A must-have and highly recommended.

I suppose it isn't bad as a dictionary with a bit of explanation, but in a "Diccionario de uso del Español" I'm hoping for more synonyms and specifics on usage, rather than just extended definitions.

My favorite Spanish dictionary. Yet I would be willing to to buy a CDROM edition, which is currently unavailable.