Customer Reviews

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (Book & CD-ROM)

5 star:		(45)
4 star:		(22)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

There are only two definitive English language dictionaries: Webster's Third (W3) and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

The OED has the advantage of scholarship, prestige and preeminence: it is generally regarded as the gold standard in the definition of English words. It achieves this primarily by citing historical books and manuscripts, going back in many cases to the dark ages, when the language itself was evolving. Comprising some 22 volumes and requiring more than three feet of shelf space, it is an impressive addition to anyone's library, albeit at a high cost. It is available, again at high cost, on CD ROM.

W3 is a single volume about four inches wide. It offers a precise definition of every word you will ever encounter (450,000 are listed) except for slang and jargon, obsolete words, technical vocabularies and recent additions to the language. It is not above providing an occasional literary allusion. It defines the English language.

Suppose you want to look up the word "synecdoche." Which of the following scenarios do you prefer?

(1) Find volume 10 of the OED and learn that Wyclif (1338) defined it as "whanne a part is set for al, either al is set for oo par . . ."

(2) Start computer, find CD ROM, load CD ROM, go to OED, step through program, find information, unload CD ROM, turn off computer, file CD ROM, go back to what you were doing in the first place.

(3) Open W3 and read "a figure of speech by which a part is put for a whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships) . . ."

W3 is THE dictionary. It belongs in everyone's home. At the listed price it is an incredible bargain. Highly recommended.

I have wished for a long time for the CD version of the Oxford English Dictionary and was on the verge of buying it until I read a review that expressed disappointment with OED-CD ease of use. The reviewer highly recommended Websters 3rd New International Dictionary:Unabridged which I purchased instead. The program is very easy to use and easily links to my MS Word.

I do have four disappointments - First, I have a real interest in etymology and though the NID:U has an etymology section it is very brief.

Second, though the CD is dated 2000 I have wondered just how up-to-date it is. For example, the word "internet" is not found.

Third, many of the illustrations in the print version are NOT in the CD version. That is a big disappointment.

Fourth, the dictionary does not contain many proper nouns or names. For example, out of the many uses for the word "Lincoln" not one definition lists Abraham as in President; neither is there any listing for Jefferson, either as President or Memorial. Look up Georgia and you will find that it is a state but there is no reference to the now country of Georgia, a former Soviet Republic. Look up any of the planets, Saturn, Venus, Mars, etc. and you find no mention of these words as describing the planets! The more I look the more disappointed I become. It is sold as an "unabridged" dictionary and according to the definition means complete, which the Wester's 3rd New International:Unabridged is not.

Something tells me you wouldn't be on this page, reading these reviews, unless you shared an acute and probably pedantic interest in words and their meanings. I ain't no different.

For about a decade now, I have been using Random House's Unabridged, which is equally weighty and was minted in 1987. I've been looking for something newer, and I thought the time had come when Webster's came out with this monster, late in the fall of 2000.

Although I was intent on buying the book, standing in the checkout line, I asked if I might not be permitted to open and examine it, just for larks.

Imagine my suprise on discovering that this book was actually printed in 1961, and is in fact almost entirely the same text! The typeset hasn't been touched since then! Folks, it's merely a re-issue of their 1961 edition.

Yes, they did add an absorbing "Special Addenda Section of New Words" toward the front of the dictionary (80-100pp, I'm guessing), but they couldn't be bothered to include these neologisms in the main text, presumably because resetting the 1961 proofs would have been too much work for Webster & co . . . ?

And if Webster & Co. couldn't be bothered to alphabetize these news words into the main body of this dictionary, I'm guessing the poor overworked editors were too busy to correct errors and typos in the main text either! Why? What is Webster's doing now? Have they started a chain of hotels or something?

I SOOOOO wanted to buy and love this book, and was SOOOOO angry to find it a con. I couldn't believe it!

Admittedly, the neologism section was VERY interesting, but you're basically paying all that moolah for that, you should understand. Perhaps you should buy the book, photocopy this section, then return the book for a full refund the next day.

Although this would be unethical, it was equally unethical, I feel, for Webster's to have grandly let on like they had drafted a completely new dictionary, when in fact they had done nothing of the kind.

Another consideration for the prospective buyer is that ideas about readability (i.e. the use of fonts, boldface, and italics to make the text more negotiable) were a lot more primitive in 1961, and, naturally, nothing has been done about that, either. In other words, the columns are very hard on the eye.

Until somebody comes along with another giant dictionary like this, but one that reflects true work and revision, I'm sticking with my old Random House.

UPDATE: I've since read (about 2010) that Webster's is in fact working up a newly reworked unabridged dictionary, to be out soon -- of the sort that I was led to believe this was. Maybe you should hold out for that one.

I just received my copy of Web's 3rd Unabridged Dictionary from Amazon. Overall I am happy and would recommend it to anyone with enough of a love for words and language to take the step up from the standard abridged dictionaries. However, I have one reservation I think is worth pointing out to the readers of this review. Amazon shows this book as an October 2000 release. The included cd appears to be 2000 (I have not yet checked to see whether its a real updated version), but the book itself is 1993. I am disappointed in that date, because I expect it will lack a lot of recent techno-jargon that I would have expected in a 2000 publication.

This review is unavoidably dichotomized: one is for the dictionary and one is for the publisher.

As for the dictionary, I have to express my deep admiration for Webster's Third New International Dictionary: it is in my opinion a wondrous dictionary, the best I have ever used. I am a researcher and I extensively use English in writing. For so much time I have rested upon imprecise or unclear dictionaries. When I came across the Webster's Dictionary I found the foremost authority in English dictionaries. The feature I most appreciate of this dictionary is that, unlike the other ones, it is based on multiple concise definitions for most words. That is, it explains meanings by means of two or three (sometimes more) different sentences which are always brief and pellucid (instead of one definition consisting of a long unwieldy sentence). Thus, the reader's cognitive effort in understanding is much smaller. Numerous examples help readers to understand every nuance of the word: the sources are diverse (literature, science, history, philosophy, etc.) and cover a wide range of contexts. Many usage notes provide synonyms and help the reader to distinguish semantically related words.
I suggest anyone to buy it at once, and I also suggest to carefully read the guide to the dictionary and to the pronunciation: you will find that the Webster's Dictionary is a very powerful tool, a lot of information is conveyed, more than you might think before reading the guide.

As for the publisher, I agree with the review entitled ``What a piece of junk'', and I would like to address one word to Merriam-Webster: lazy! You are very lazy. Webster's Dictionary is a petrified dictionary, no revised edtion has been made from 1961. I am astonished, I wonder what you are doing. You keep on publishing reprints and sell them at a very high price. Anyone may find here in Italy the 1993 edition reprinted by Konemann at a very low price. Some time ago I bought it at 27 Euros (about 23 US dollars). It is true that there is an addenda but this is just the evidence that a revision has not been accomplished. A serious publisher would have undertaken a complete revision. Once upon a time you were a prime example of how a publisher should work, currently you are a prime example of how a publisher should not work (are you aware of what Oxford University Press is doing now with its English Dictionary?). Webster's Third New International Dictionary is still the best dictionary (bar Oxford English Dictionary) but you are sitting on your laurels: watch out! If you do not look to your laurels Random House will soon outstrip you.

It is obvious that my five star score is for the dictionary as it was compiled by Noah Webster and revised by lexicographers and scholars at Merriam until 1961. Current Merriam deserves no score.

I'd owned the Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (3rd Edition) since 1985 and recently I'd also brought the "latest" edition of this dictionary with CD-ROM. What I found the CD-ROM's illustrations were just based on the deluxe edition of their Collegiate Dictionary, therefore the CD-ROM's contents are actually an abridged edition of the original printed edition. If you do not have the deluxe edition you may check their web site (www.m-w.com), an on-line edition is over there. According to the response of Merriam-Webster's staff, it's contents are based on the 1993 edition of the Unabridged Dictionary, actually the 1993 edition is the "latest" of their Unabridged Dictionary. The copyright date 2000 is merely the production date of that CD-ROM!

But the CD-ROM is actually very useful to find related words because it has advanced searches and browse function, where I can find related information very easy. And it is not possible in the past when there is only a printed dictionary.

Yes, actually this dictionary has it's disadvantage, because it cannot provide explanation in geographical and biographical name etc. If you are looking for more updated and latest unabridged dictionary, I suggest you can buy the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. (They'd published their unabridged dictionary, 2nd edition with CD-ROM as early as 1993)

Finally, just give you some interesting facts about the 2nd edition of the Unabridged Dictionary (Merriam-Webster), the total number of words and size is actually larger than the "Unabridged" Dictionary (3rd edition), therefore the word "unabridged" is merely indicate that it is a larger dictionary, but actually cannot really cover "everything"!

Webster's 3rd International is a terrific dictionary, but it becomes even better with this CD-ROM. The software starts up within 2 seconds of clicking the icon, and you can simply start typing the word you want to look up. "Of course," you say? Well...check out the OED, which I bought and subsequently returned. With that, it takes about 20 seconds to get started (assuming you already have the CD-ROM in your drive--otherwise it will take you longer), and then leaves you with a page full of options to choose. And then...but I digress. Let's just say the software for Webster's is just what you want--click on the icon, type the word, hit RETURN, voila. And you can double click on any word in the definition and you are instantly brought to that word's definition--which is REALLY nice. The software is good enough that it significantly enhances the value of the dictionary. And if you don't believe me, do what I did: buy the OED first, let the world's worst software package frustrate the heck out of you for a week, then return it and buy Webster's 3rd.

This is in response to the fellow who claims it to be a peice of junk. This is an excellent dictionary. I personally own the Random House dictionary (Unabridged) as well as the American Heritage dictionary and neither of these even come close to the breadth of information in this dictionary. It has many more entries defined and lot more usages explained. It has lots of obscure and interesting words you will not find defined in any other American dictionary besides probably the Websters 2nd international (1934) or Johnson's Dictionary. Granted that it is somewhat old (1961) and some of the definitions are a little outdated, but it's scholarship is unmatched by any other dictionary besides the great oxford English dictionary (20 volumes). If I were given the choice to own only 1 dictionary it would be this one. Hope this helps.

The Merriam-Webster's dictionaries are supposed to reflect the language as it is not the language as is might be or should be. At least that was what Noah Webster's intentions were. This sequence of dictionaries has gone through 4 major editions: 1890, 1909, 1934 and 1961. (I am excluding the earlier editions which are really quite different than those versions called "international".) As you can see every 20 years or so, G.C Merriam published a major update. We should have seen the Fourth edition sometime in the Reagan administration. Dictionary enthusiasts would already be saving their pennies for the fifth edition. The main body of the dictionary is out of date. Unlike the 20 vol. OED, this was never meant to be a scholar's dictionary. It is meant to be current. The editions since the late 1960's have all included addenda, but that section does not address the problems with existing entries. It is also quite cumbersome to use.

If one wants to see what a well done modern dictionary looks like that does not need a bookcase of it's own, one need only look to the recent editions of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

This review focuses on aspects of the software, not the quality of the dictionary content.

The software is fairly usable. When installed onto your hard drive (80 MB) it starts up in 4 seconds. You enter sufficient characters to identify the word and/or choose it from a filtered list. The entry (including stress and pronunciation symbols) is displayed typographically like the printed edition. Illustrations are not included with the entries. Any word in the definition can be double-clicked to jump to its definition. The software supports advanced searches and includes online help.

Anything supporting faster lookup would improve usability. This includes faster startup (nearly all of the startup time is spent in the splash screen). Since the program consumes 1--3 MB of RAM, it is reasonable to leave it running. Improved support for looking up words from other programs would be nice. The software includes macros to facilitate lookup from Microsoft Word and WordPerfect, but support for alt-clicking any word (à la GuruNet/Atomica) would be more useful.

The GUI isn't "polished": Background colors don't abide with your desktop color scheme, window size-position is not retained when restarting the program, old style WinHelp is used instead of the newer HTML-based help, etc. These are simply annoyances; the software is stable and bug-free.

The software is an improvement over the online dictionary available at Merriam-Webster's website in that you don't need to be connected to the Internet and that the dictionary is unabridged.