Customer Reviews

Encarta World English Dictionary

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(15)

 

 

I recently purchased the Encarta World Dictionary, but was disappointed to find that it was not as innovative as I thought it might be. Although it does cover a lot of new words that have come into the English language recently, more established words words have not been given much attention. Take the word marquee: Encarta's definition is "The canopy projecting out over the entrance to a large building, such as a hotel or theater". This is a definition most older dictionaries will give you. I think a more popular definition today would be "An internally illuminated sign outside a hotel or theater". The second meaning of marquee, "A vary large tent with straight sides that can be rolled up and removed, used for large gatherings" is the British English definition, but no mention of that fact is made. The British meaning of the verg "to slate" which is to criticize in the U.K. is not mentioned at all, nor is the Australian meaning of the word veranda. In Australia a veranda means a permanent awning projecting over the sidewalk for protection from the elements. In my mind Encarta cannot claim to be a world dictionary unless it includes these meanings. Encarta is well laid out and easy to read, but for my mind doesn't compete with the OED or Divided by a Common Language. (Great for finding out what's British and what's American).

Encarta World English Dictionary

I own a number of dictionaries and consult most of them every day. Each has its limitations. All are necessary to my work. These self-references are shared inorder to suggest that the Encarta World Dictionary will be praised by some, reviled by others. Given its substantial cost, you are urged to (a) determine precisely what your needs are and then (b) determine to what extent Encarta fills most (if not all) of those needs. It was a welcome addition to my personal library. I refer to it almost every day. When evaluating a dictionary such as this, how important is the total number of words? This one offers comparably fewer than others in its price range. How important are the origins of words? I prefer other sources such as John Ayto's Dictionary of Word Origins. How important is historical (especially biographical) material? In this area, I rate the Encarta adequate. How current do you require a dictionary to be? None other in its price range is more current. How important to you is the nomenclature of the Internet and WWW? There are far better sources if that is your primary reference need. No dictionary of this scale can be everything to everyone. I rate it as highly as I do because of its practical value to me. Also, because it is aesthetically pleasing. I again urge you to determine what you need from a dictionary. Examine the Encarta carefully and then judge for yourself.

In response to some other reviews here, a few quick things. First off, this sadly isn't a "full-sized dictionary." By including an excess of modern techno-slang ("alot of "hip" words" one reader writes) and utilizing a far larger typeface, this dictionary succeeds in achieving the same apparent size of many other dictionaries, while containing approximately half as many words, many of which are entries like "LOL," an abbreviation I for my part haven't had to look up recently. This is the reason for the creation of Slang Dictionaries. I have nothing agaisnt the inclusion of commonly used words or phrases in a dictionary, but at the expense of words that one might actually look up one day, it is a deplorable practice. Furthermore, nearly all etymological explanations have been removed, relegated to infrequent "Word Key" boxes. Microsoft has truly created, to quote suck.com, the world's first Dictionary for Dummies, and I detest it.

This unfortunate attempt reads like a Who's Who in Hollywood rather than a serious lexicon. The writers omit entries such as "salary" and "Monticello" in favor of those such as "Moore, Demi" and "Costner, Kevin," whose place in a dictionary is questionable, at best. The dictionary's etymology essays are enjoyable, though.

What kind of dictionary would give entries for three large moons of Jupiter (Ganymede, Callisto, Io) but not the fourth (Europa)? The same dictionary that has entries for Sophocles and Euripides, two of the towering figures of Greek tragedy, but none for Aeschylus. The same dictionary that gives biographies for eight Supreme Court justices but inexplicably does not mention the ninth. (Is Justice Anthony Kennedy paying a price for being a Kennedy?) A completely new dictionary that has been rushed into print with insufficient attention to scrupulous accuracy, parallel entries, and defensible criteria for inclusion and exclusion.

The result is too often a hodgepodge of the exotic and trendy. In its hurry to get to press, the Encarta dictionary often couches its definitions in language that is inelegant, imprecise, and incomplete. A wonk, for example, is somebody who is regarded as boringly, narrowly, or obliviously preoccupied with something, especially work. To blindside is to put somebody at a disadvantage. These definitions are unsatisfactory. Compare Random House Webster's wonk: a person who studies a subject or issue in an excessively assiduous manner. Or American Heritage's blindside: to take unawares, especially with harmful results.

The Encarta, which calls itself an adult dictionary, is unique in its attention to off-color and scatological terms. It includes definitions for the all-purpose f word (four separate meanings for the verb, four for the noun) but also for the f-word combined with five separate prepositions.

At the same time it attaches to these words a boldface label offensive term; often taboo insult or taboo offensive is added in italics for good measure. The accumulation of boldface and italic warnings can be wearing and wearying. One entry under queer reads, for example: OFFENSIVE TERM an offensive term meaning homosexual (offensive).

The absence of any etymology or year when the word was first used means that neologisms come decked out in the same respectability as seasoned expressions burnished by time. Outsource, rightsize, downscale, collateral damage: Shouldn't words like these come with warning labels attached?

Encarta suffers from arbitrary decision-making. The same arbitrariness seems at work with alphabetization, where the Mcs are interlaced without warning among the Macs. Thus, John McEnroe and Reba McEntire are sandwiched between Macedonian and macerate, and McKinley falls between Mackinaw trout and Catherine Mackinnon.

Encarta's cultural notes seem to be entertaining snippets that give the illusion of enlightenment but are alien to a dictionary's traditional purpose. Encarta explains that the cultural notes form a bridge from a particular sense of a word to its wider cultural context. They typically refer to titles of books, movies, plays, and musical pieces, especially those that have passed into the language.

What kind of bridge is a note under last that is a three-sentence summary of The Last of the Mohicans? A note under home that has a TV Guide-like description of Home Alone A note for park that describes Jane Austen's Mansfield Park? Why that novel instead of Gorky Park or Sunday in the Park with George? These definitions, like the dictionary itself, suffer from an identity crisis.

In its printed form, Encarta is too big and cumbersome for a desk dictionary, and it lacks the authority to stand as the final arbiter on matters of meaning or usage. As an editor, I work daily with words and language. My advice: The buyer should be aware of this beta test, which is being sold as what it is not: a finished product.

I purchased a copy of this dictionary about 5 months ago. My passion is studying the roots of words as well as the multi meanings of the words (semantics). I love writing, do not want to be garrulous. I have one copy at my office, one copy in my room and one copy for my fiance who lives with me and I just bought one for my nephew. I actually have asked my local bookstore manager to locate a couple of more for me to give to my brothers as gift. I find this dictionary the best I have ever had. Of course English being my second language, in past twenty five years, I have had more than a dozen of dictionaries. The pictorial, the examples, and history of the words in this dictionary have just been very helpful and insightful. Sam Ghezavat

Other reviewers have identified with great clarity other shortcomings of this dictionary so I will focus on just one: the claim to be a "world english" dictionary is utterly bogus. In reality this is an American English dictionary, with other versions of the language reduced to the status of dialects that merit little more than footnotes.

To take just one example, the definition for "boot" provides four meanings that are primarily or exclusively American (including an entry that perhaps only Microsoft could consider useful: "Denver boot: A Denver boot") without identifying any of these entries as "US", as it does for other countries' unique usages. Finally, at position 10, it provides the most common British usage, and that only by cross-reference to the American equivalent "trunk".

To call such as US-centric approach "world english" is not merely absurd, but an insult to every English speaker outside the US.

The Encarta Dictionary is obviously a departure from dictionaries as we know them. It's self-consciously up-to-date and politically correct, it has photos and entries for people with questionable staying power, etc. But those appear to be the major weaknesses. Its definitions are crisp and to-the-point and don't get overburdened with technical language. It has a decent (but not spectacular) selection of words and phrases from other countries where English is spoken. It is especially good with Canadian terms but I noted several glaring omissions. The people at St. Martin's and Encarta are to be congratulated for stirring the pot a little with this new book. In the end, they set a task for themselves (comprehensive coverage of world English) that even the OED can't master. I would bet that the second edition will be more on the mark.

The Encarta does not add anything new to the field. Hopefully, the next edition of Encarta will fix many of the problems mentioned by critics.

Number of words: OED2, RH2, and NI3 list more words.

Pronunciations: CIDE is far more comprehensive in explaining the differences in American and British English.

Etymology: OED2, NI3, CIDE, RH2 are better. The Encarta staff deleted most of the Etymologies.

Pictures: DK Oxford has more pictures, and they are in color.

Price : DK Oxford, MW 10C, and CIDE are cheaper.

CD: RH2, MW 10C, and OE2 all have excellent CDs. The Encarta CD is not available for review, yet.

Definitions: The Encarta tries to list shortened definitions in bold, then longer definitions for every meaning. Most of the longer definitions only add a few words to the shorter def, making for a repetitive jumble. ALL of the dictionaries have clearer definitions.

Usage: Word usage is very rare, in Encarta. CIDE and OED2 have usage examples for all words.

Frills : MW 10C and Oxford both list dates of first usage. CIDE, MW, RH2, and DK Oxford have more useful tables than Encarta.

The Encarta is listed as the first new American dictionary of English in many years. It seems the Encarta was pushed out a bit early, probably due to the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, which is a new dictionary coming out in a few weeks.

Offensive words: The word 'Offensive' is mentioned over twenty times within the definition text of some words. This is an example of how redundant the Encarta can be.

The Encarta claims to be an International dictionary of English. Actually, there are British and American versions of the Encarta, both quite different. If you want pronunciations of both forms, you'll need to buy both versions. CIDE is a true International dictionary, going to great lengths to differentiate between British, American, and Australian.

This dictionary was given to me recently by a well-meaning relative; it seems that it has already been sent to the deep discount bin of her local mega bookstore. She knows that I love dictionaries and purchased it for me, thinking that she had found a bargain.

Beware -- this dictionary is woefully poor in execution. Definitions often resort to using the root word within the definition, the alphabetical order it employs is not the same way to alphabetize that I learned in elementary school, lots of small print, etc.

For a dictionary which is supposed to be a "world" English dictionary, it seems to lack many world variations on definitions and leaves out "world English" vocabulary, too. This dictionary is clearly aimed at an United States audience.

Your money is better spent on a Merriam-Webster or American Heritage product.