 |
|
Title: The New Oxford American Dictionary
ISBN: 0195170776
Author:
Publicate Date: 2005-05-19
Publish: 2005-05-19
List Price: $60.00
Average Customer Rating: 4.5
Format: Hardcover
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $37.60
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $20.41
Amazon Merchant Price: $37.80
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition
Wonderful, thorough reference. Good use of white space to make locating easy. Only one complaint--this is a textbook sized volume and can be a little unweildy.
|
2: Great book!
Love the book and the delivery time was wonderful, too. The first thing you do when you get a new dictionary, of course, is to look up an obscure word. We looked up "perspicuous" and got our first belly laugh of the day when the definition was "clearly expressed and easily understood." The words are bolded so you can see them easily and the definitions are concise and clear.
|
3: Lacks a lot of words.
I bought this hoping it would be "complete". It is a disappointment. I watch Bill O'Reilly and like to look up the words he closes with.... most are not in this dictionary. "Bloviate" is not here.... plus lots of other words, some admittedly not common. I'm disappointed. I expected better.
JKH
|
4: Too few entries.
I simply come across far too many words that are just not in this dictionary. Also, a significant problem with the Kindle edition: if a word has more than one entry, only the first entry is shown or accessible. Very disappointing.
|
5: Popular Dictionary, not good for Proper Names
This dictionary is a Pop dictionary, and is not really appropriate for scholarly reference or for people looking for more detailed information. It's fine for general definitions and etymology, but really poor for proper names.
Each proper name entry is the same length (about three sentences), regardless of who the person is. Thus Tom Cruise gets nearly as much space as Abraham Lincoln, and the entries for Stephen King and Martin Luther King are the same length. Important historical figures like Jan Hus--the Bohemian revolutionary whose religious ideas predated the Reformation--are nowhere to be found, but if you're looking for Julia Roberts, no problem.
The editorical decisions on the entries for nations are equally bizarre. For instance, the entry on the United States is only slightly longer than the one for Tunisia. No offense to Tunisians, but this seems like an absurd attempt to be even-handed and to not make value judgements about the importance of one place over another. The nation entries also don't provide any history, demographics, or topography--really they don't provide much of anything beyond a generic description that tells you what continent you're on.
This is not a dictionary for people who like details. No definition is more than 2-3 sentences, regardless of how important it is. The editors also don't make any decisions about what is important. Why does Bach get the same treatment as Scriabin? I seriously question the motives of Oxford University Press. It seems like an intentionally dumbed-down edition meant to appeal to Americans--something we should all take offense at.
|
|
|
|
|
