13
Dec/093
Dec/093
Concise Oxford English Dictionary: 11th Edition Revised 2008
Review
A dictionary may not contain narratives and poems, but the best ones, like this one, give you the tools. David Malcolm, Times Literary Supplement This is the dictionary par excellence for the general reader. David Malcolm, Times Literary Supplement It answers a lot of questions; it is easy to use; it does not take up too much space on a crowded desk. David Malcolm, TLS
Now in print through its various editions for almost a century, the Concise Oxford En…
Buy Concise Oxford English Dictionary: 11th Edition Revised 2008 at Amazon
Comments (3)
Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )
Leave a comment
No trackbacks yet.
2:56 am on December 13th, 2009
This dictionary is just perfect, there is almost no word in it one cannot find, and every word is combined with examples. I have used a lot of dictionaries in my life, but none is better.
4:30 am on December 13th, 2009
There are many dictionaries in that size available in the market, but few have the same level of detail and conciseness found on this one. The two-volume version of the Oxford dictionary is a better dictionary in terms of number of entries and definitions per entry, but carrying two huge volumes is a major inconvenience.
If you are willing to carry only a compact single volume dictionary, this dictionary is certainly a good choice. This edition has been revised in 2008. The paper in thin, but seems to be capable of resisting tear and wear. The only feature missing is a thumb index.
6:51 am on December 13th, 2009
I wanted a dictionary of British English to enhance my enjoyment and understanding of British usage in British lit. and DVDs. An English prof. recommended the Concise OED, so I bought it. It’s a subset of the great OED, about the same size as Webster’s Collegiate. It has the expected British spellings plus words not in Websters, e.g., “bollocks” and “Sassenach.” Some of its descriptions are more complete or specific than Webster’s, e.g., “back bencher” and “ha-ha.” The type size/legibility is comparable to Webster’s. It’s a great adjunct to my Webster’s for the use I’m making of it.