justing.net

A Library of Dictionaries

By Justin G. on 24NOV14THU

I have collected a few dictionaries. I mean the bound paper kind of dictionary. Why? Because they are cheap, interesting, useful, surprising, and reliable.

You can usually find them used for a few dollars, often with free shipping. I think this is because no one else wants them. How many people do you know that have a dictionary? Or many books at all for that matter.

For me, interest often goes in a couple of directions. Further clarification on something that I already vaguely know, and complete surprise. Dictionaries offer both of these in huge proportion.

Different dictionaries contain different words, or explain the definitions of the same words in different ways. This can be quite useful. Sometimes they have more senses. Sometimes a dictionary will mention archaic uses or variations. Some include pictures or short narratives.

One advantage of real books is the element of surprise. I think this is a greatly overlooked feature of browsing real books and real bookshelves. While scanning down the page to find what you are seeking, your eyes must pass over many other entries. Sometimes, more often than you might expect, there are some very alluring words, very necessary words that are encountered purely by chance along the way. I think also, by definition, one usually consults a dictionary when they aren’t sure of something and often there is a surprise in the resolution, even if it’s a small one.

Paper books have an advantage over computer based information storage: they don’t usually change when you aren’t looking at them. There’s no annual subscription fee. They stay where you put them, usually. That can be both a feature and a bug. Paper books have unique interfaces that you can learn and depend on. They’re stable.

The following list is in chronological order by publish date.

Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition, 1986. It’s functional, has occasional maps and illustrations, and is generally good but dry. This is one that Zinsser suggests as a good option in On Writing Well. He also mentions the American Heritage dictionary, and that he’s got more too.

Dictionary of Word Origins, 1990. Smaller, shorter book. Still comes in handy at times when searching for the right word.

Reader’s Digest Illustrated Reverse Dictionary, 1990. There is a non-illustrated version of this, but I didn’t locate a copy of that.

The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Volumes 1 and 2, 1993. I use it, sometimes. It’s kind of a tossup whether I will search the internet or not at this point. Definitely contains a lot of information. Since it’s the “shorter” version, it’s not exhaustive or unabridged.

The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition, 1997. Small gutter. Includes pictures and sometimes a short informative background related to the word. For instance, for heroin, the drug, there is an extra bit about how this name was originally chosen, and what the name is usually differently attributed to now.

Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary, 2002. A selection of words and definitions, quotes, and quips, from the original dictionary. Fun to check while editing to see if there is some useful association that is no longer common.

The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories, 2002. Same as the other book on word histories.

The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 2004. Gutter problem isn’t quite so bad. I enjoy the extra info and less dry attitude.

The Chambers Dictionary, 11th Edition, 2008. Mostly British English, has more obscure words that are sometimes dialect. This is really useful when writing to add the occasional bit of flavor. That’s what I think, at least.

I’m not recommending one over another; the assemblage is more useful than any one in particular. If the question is which physical dictionary to get instead of continuing to have none, then the answer is which ever you find first.

Got a favorite dictionary? Send me an email about it.