Rating: 
Summary: Gourgeous dictionary but lazy publisher
Review: 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 high price. Anyone may find here in Italy the 1993 edition reprinted by Konemann at a very low price. Some weeks 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.
Rating: 
Summary: QUITE A LANDMARK REFERENCE
Review: This unabridged version of "Webster's Third New International Dictionary" presents a landmark (American English) reference. It is an indispensable, all-inclusive tool, which would lighten the yokes of both writers and transcribers.
A rare single-volume monster, it harbours more terms and definitions than an average English speaker would ever need. Its contemporary outlook is solid: just as amazing as its price is reasonable.
Nevetheless, one sour-point of this gem is that its print-size is too small. Still, it remains a fine tool.
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.
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.
Rating:
Summary: fast and easy
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Superb BUT....
Review: Webster's 3rd New International Unabridged is indeed a "must-have", _but_ it is likewise desperately in need of a major revision, i.e., a *4th edition*. I own the three-volume version of the 3rd Edition purchased through Encyclopaedia Britannica in the mid-'60's. Besides the basic Merriam-Webster 3rd Unabridged contents, it features a very useful "seven-language dictionary". I wish that the greatly-needed revision of the 3rd New International will include a revision for the version that I have. Hope springs eternal, as the adage goes.
Rating:
Summary: Superb BUT....
Review: Webster's 3rd New International Unabridged is indeed a "must-have", _but_ it is likewise desperately in need of a major revision, i.e., a *4th edition*. I own the three-volume version of the 3rd Edition purchased through Encyclopaedia Britannica in the mid-'60's. Besides the basic Merriam-Webster 3rd Unabridged contents, it features a very useful "seven-language dictionary". I wish that the greatly-needed revision of the 3rd New International will include a revision for the version that I have. Hope springs eternal, as the adage goes.
Rating:
Summary: A great dictionary, but.....
Review: Webster's Third is certainly one of the great dictionaries of the world and the standard reference of American English. But it is showing its age. The major portion consisting of the A-to-Z listing was originally published in 1961. This revision has an addenna of 70 pages listing new words which have come into usage since then. Merriam-Webster has announced that a Fourth Edition should be expected by 2002. Hopefully, they are also looking on publishing a CD-ROM version.
Rating:
Summary: Sometimes bigger is better
Review: With the exception of the complete Oxford English Dictionary, there simply isn't a more useful dictionary available. And unlike the exorbitant price of the OED (unless you like using a microscopic text and magnifying glass with the compact OED), the Webster's is sufficient for most users. I've been using mine for decades; the one I grew up with wore out. I hate abridged dictionaries; as a lifelong reader and writer, you never know when an obscure word is going to come up -- and at this point in my life, those are the only words I don't know. Plus, the Webster's makes a dandy footstool while you're at the computer!
Rating:
Summary: A good dictionary but a little not up-to-date
Review: Yes, this is a good dictionary, I have used it since 1985 and I am a dictionary lover. I use many professional dictionaries such as Random XXX Dictionary, Webxxxx New World Dictionary, American Herxxxx Dictionary, Longxxx Dictionary, Oxfxxx Dictionary, Encarxxx Dictionary etc. I think the 3rd New International Dictionary is a good dictionary, but it is not so up-to-date when compared with other dictionaries I have mentioned above. Since the major portion of this dictionary was originally published in 1961, I think it is a must to update it with a completely new version with the help of the computer database. And I think, at the present moment, the list price (US$69.96) for a single CD-ROM of this dictionary is not worth enough to buy, unless it is bundled with the hard copy (the price can be adjusted) such as Random xxxxx's Unabridged Dictionary, they have hard copy with CD-ROM bundled. I think Merriam-Webster have to think about this - at least this is an added option.
|
