Rating: 
Summary: In response to Charles M. Sebree and Scott Eliason
Review: 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"!
Rating:
Summary: The biggest I have....CD VERSION
Review: I'm an avid collector of Webster dictionaries and this one is definetely the biggest one available, but it has serious drawbacks too.Firstly, the layout is very bad.When I click it, it seems to me that everything is a bit messy.It lacks geographical names, colloquial terms and the usage notes are rare and not very clear as well. This dictionary includes many dialectical words like"mud clerk" that are not included in other unabridged dictionaries.This book is helpful with pronunciation (there are usually several variants included)and etymology (for those who need it)
Still, I would highly recommand Random House Webster's Unabridged instead, for those who need detailed and absolutely perfect usage notes and regional varations. Random House has only 320 000 words, but includes geographical names and proper nouns.
4 stars overall for being the biggest and for some helpful option available on this CD
Rating: 
Summary: Descriptive Rather Than Prescriptive -- a Major Flaw
Review: None of the other Amazon reviewers, even those who only give this book 1 star, seem to mention what was an enormous controversy in literary circles when this book first appeared in 1961 -- that it was "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive." The great Second Edition Webster's Unabridged, originally published around 1930, had set the standard for dictionaries but was unashamedly prescriptive -- it told you clearly what each word meant and which words were correct to use and which words were not. It didn't matter if millions of people used the word "ain't": it was incorrect usage and that's all there was to it. The Third Edition, of 1961, switched this around. It said that if enough people used a word a certain way, then it was, at the very least, acceptable usage. As I recall, the eminent critic Dwight Macdonald immediately wrote a long, scathing article about the Third Edition in The New Yorker and absolutely trashed the book. Jacques Barzun and others wrote similar reviews. And in a detective novel that followed not long after, that beloved fatty of West 35th Street, Nero Wolfe, sits in front of his fireplace and tears his copy of the dictionary to pieces page by page, feeding them into the flames. Its crime: saying that "infer" could be used in place of "imply." But not to Dwight Macdonald, not to Rex Stout and Nero Wolfe, and not to me, either. I found a used copy of the Second Edition in a bookstore in Harvard Square around 1965 and have carried its enormous bulk around the world with me ever since. If you want to find out the *correct* usage of a word, get the Second Edition -- if you can possibly find it....
Rating:
Summary: Acceptable
Review: Please note that CD-Rom version is v2.5. From the listing title you would expect the CD-Rom is v3.0 but that is for the Dictionary Version. This is more than confusing. Anyways, after a lot of hassle I received a replacement with no CD-Rom at all so I had to replace the replacement. Somewhat poor quality control. (I decided to re-rate this just to be fair. The Merriam-Webster website is not particularly helpful in this regard.)
Rating:
Summary: An old friend past but well past it's prime
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't be fooled: This dictionary is from 1961!
Review: The Webster's Third New International Dictionary is a huge and wonderful resource that has more than 400,000 word definitions. It's probably the second most comprehensive listing behind the Oxford English Dictionary. I have a copy of this same dictionary from 1981. The primary copyright is 1961. The book listed here is supposedly published in 2002. All three editions are in fact the _third_ edition of the same dictionary. One only need to look up certain words. Take "negro." This dictionary defines this as acceptable term for common useage. The term "anti-Semite" is defined not just as someone who has hostility towards Jews, but also anyone who opposes Zionism or sympathizes with who those who oppose Israel. Talk about a loaded political definition. Look the same term in any other modern English dictionary and you'll see a simple "Hostility towards Jews" definition. Who knows how many other severely dated terms and definitions are in this dictionary. A recent newspaper article stated that they don't plan to release the fourth edition of this dictonary for another 7 to 10 years. We're already looking at a dictionary that's 45 years old and it'll be 52+ years in age before it gets an update? If you're looking at a dictionary of this magnitude my recommendation is to go for the "Short Oxford English Diciontary."
Rating: 
Summary: If you love the English language...
Review: This is the largest, most thorough, most authoritative american dictionary available. It is a major publishing event when a new edition is released. If your idea of a delightful afternoon is browsing through a dictionary looking for previously unknown words, reading about their origins, and wondering about this amazing thing called the English language, this book will provide you with enough material to keep you happy for many years to come.
Rating:
Summary: Dictionaries are supposed to settle arguemnts, not start 'em
Review: W2 has been controvercial since the day it came out. It makes no distinction between correct and non-standard words, it's pronuciation guide is non-standard, it's emphasis marks are in the wrong place .. it even includes "ain't" without comment. The truth is W3 was really a cost cutting measure. The larger W2 (with it's "Reference History" and other extra material) cost so much to produce that Merriam set about to size the thing down. The result, I am afraid is not as good as where they stared. The old W2, even badly dated as it is, really remains the best dictionary by far. It's all there, but it puts non-standard words below a line across the page. As far as questions about words go, The 2nd settles the matter; the 3rd leaves us wondering. In my opinion, the Merriam 2nd is still the best. Second place goes to the OED, (too big, too expencive, and reaaly just a list of examples anyway) then maybe in 3rd place, the old New World Unabridged. Merriam, (now part of Britanica) really should just bight the bullet, retire the W3 and set about updating W2. CD's and the net have taken away the original arguement that the W2 was just too expensive to print and bind. And the few hard copies made could be a little pricey .. they usually go to intitutions, not indviduals anyway.
| 
