Rating: 
Summary: Best Dictionary Around
Review: This dictionary is my favorite, because it is very complete, carries technical definitions, and the word derivations are the best anywhere. In addition, many words refer the reader to an index in the back that outlines many of the words derived from the same root. With those tools, it is nearly impossible to avoid grasping the concept that underlies that word or words. It is not a good dictionary for children, but for literate adults it is unsurpassed.
Rating:
Summary: Impressive accomplishment
Review: This is a well-written dictionary, with very clear and occasionally lively definitions, usage notes, and word histories. There are over 10,000 new terms or definitions. As in the past, there are also many illustrations, some whimsical, but many adding significantly to the definitions. For example, I looked up the definition of a particular type of knot, and they had an excellent picture of how it is tied. I then looked up several other knots and found illustrations in the same style, making comparison easy. Color has been added to this latest edition, and it adds real value to many of the illustrations, such as the mini-maps next to country entries. The layout, as in previous versions, is unusually clear and readable for a major dictionary. One major change: terms to be defined are now in blue ink and the definitions are no longer slightly indented; presumably this allows more text to fit on each page. I slightly prefer the prvious method, because the terms stand out more; but they still stand out more clearly than in most other dictionaries. I haven't run into the paper-tearing problem mentioned by a previous reviewer. All in all, an excellent reference.
Rating:
Summary: Great dictionary...
Review: This is the best dictionary that I've ever owned, not to say there are not better dictionaries in existence. I bought it a couple of months ago and have found it extremely useful. It has a nice looking cover, which looks perfect on my coffee table. What I really like about this dictionary is the color coordination (words in blue and definitions in black) and the number of color pictures present through out its pages. Since there are so many pictures, it makes browsing easy and enjoyable. If your looking for a dictionary that's easy to carry, then this book is not for you (2076 pages, with reasonably thick paper). This is important because your looking only at an image of the book and mobility may be a prerequisite of yours. I highly recommend this dictionary...
Rating:
Summary: Very pleasant to use
Review: What may be the most evident at first about this dictionary is the beautiful layout and the nice use of color. For some reason, this seems to make the whole experience of using this dictionary more pleasant. (This review is for the hardback edition, not the mass paperback.) Another strength of this dictionary is the addition of numerous contemporary terms - it feels up-to date. At over 200,000 words, the AHD 4th is comparable to the MW Collegiate Dictionary or the Oxford New American Dictionary, and it is a nice complement or supplement to either or both. For greater breadth and depth of coverage, there is always the MW Third New International Dictionary, the Shorter OED, or the 20 volume OED.
Rating:
Summary: The Best of Its Kind
Review: Whenever anyone asks me what the best dictionary is, I unhesitatingly recommend the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. That's the big, unabridged one. The handy pocket edition has close to 1,000 pages and costs only $. It's based on the unabridged original and has the same features I really like about the big one: Etymology, lots of photos, guidance on grammar, etc. The only criticism one might have of this book is the choice of who gets to have his picture in the dictionary. In this particular edition, a male European American is a long shot, unless he happens to have been President of the United States. For example, Tenzing Norgay, who scaled Mount Everest with Sir Edmund Hillary, gets his picture in the dictionary; Sir Edmund is not so honored. Muhammad Ali, Jesse Owens, Michael Jordan, and Jackie Robinson make the book, but not Babe Ruth. Pocahontas makes it, but not Captain John Smith. But, to me, these "flaws" are not irritating; they're just kind of amusing. If you want a terrific pocket dictionary, then look no further. There's nothing else in the class of the American Heritage.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't Judge a Book By It's Color
Review: Whether the Fourth Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary is an improvement over the Third Edition is questionable. The most obvious difference between them is the application of color to the thumbnail illustrations which embellish the outside margins of the page. The application of color may be a smart marketing move, but it enhances the least important aspect of the work. The improvement is marginal, since the detail of these miniatures tends to suffer. After using the 4th edition for awhile, I found that I favored the monochrome pictures of the 3rd edition. The 4th edition is a good dictionary, and no doubt admirably reflects the rapid change and growth of the lexicon. My complaint is with the perception that the publishers encourage, that this oversized reference is more comprehensive than the leading standard sized college dictionaries on the market. I am not able to claim, that Merriam-Webster's Collegiate (as one example) is more comprehensive that the Heritage. Such a determination is beyond me. However, I have calculated the amount of text contained in these two works, per line, per page, and total. Surprisingly, the smaller Merriam-Webster contains a comparable number of words of text over all. The art of dictionary making is primarily one of including as many entries, definitions, etymologies, and other essential information about words, as possible within the limitations of the printed work. Heritage takes the way of least resistance by simply making the book larger, much larger, and filling the space with eye candy, and removing most of the intimidating abbreviations. The folks at Merriam-Webster have chosen the more traditional way. Theirs is the more disciplined and painstaking approach of condensing information through the judicious use of page space, typography, and reasonable abbreviations, with the objective of presenting the reader with more substantive and scholarly lexicographical information. The standard edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate is about half the size and weight of the Heritage, and costs significantly less. The Collegiate is printed on paper with more body, and with pages sized right for easy turning, making that book easier to handle on a day-to-day basis. Finally, because the Collegiate seems to offer more lexical information on each word listed, and seems to list as many words as the Heritage, it behooves the buyer to consider carefully what he or she wants and needs in a dictionary, before making a purchase. A serious student of the language, a frequent writer, a person who often needs to take the dictionary along with him, and anyone who just wants an inexpensive yet sturdy and reliable one-source reference work of impeccable scholarship may find that such works as Webster's New World College Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, and even the Heritage's own college edition may suit their needs better than the full sized Heritage Fourth. On careful examination, a wary buyer will find that these alternative references are quite on a par with the Heritage, except for type size and the pretty, but frustratingly tiny illustrations. While older stay-at-homes may find the larger format an advantage, others may find the opposite. My handsome Heritage 3rd Edition is still like new, collecting dust on the shelf across the room, while my standard college desk dictionary is now a well used reference book, taking up little space on my desk at home and at work.
Rating: 
Summary: Atrocity
Review: With the fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary the English language seems to have become what anyone says it is. Nothing is absolutely correct; nothing is ever wrong. It is just a matter of who uses a word and why. Entries like "shopaholic," "control freak," "incentivize," and other atrocities are included in a manner which suggests some legitimacy. It can be debated whether dictionaries should be prescriptive - asserting that a word has relatively determined meanings and a proper usage; or descriptive - asserting that a word has shifting meanings depending on popular usage. However, the better dictionaries try to maintain a balance. In this dictionary the user, not the word, is master. Competing claims are never firmly settled and the rules of grammar are fuzzy. For example, in the dictionary's "usage notes," there are no standard distinctions between "who" and "whom", and it is even suggested that such distinctions are irrelevant. The dictionary claims an impressive editorial committee. It is indeed unfortunate that the product appears to have been produced by an ineffectual middle-management committee. Samuel Johnson would roll over in his grave.
|
