Language desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 26

dictionary

Hello all. I need a dictionary. Cost doesn't matter, but I can only have one. This dictionary should be reliable, comprehensive, and encompass both slang and dialect words as well as some degree of specialized words. It doesn't matter if it is British or American English (nor does it matter if it is Canadian, Australian, etc., etc.), but it should note the other regional spellings and usages as well. I would prefer some illustrations and appendices, general reference in the back. The problem is, there's about dozen major dictionaries and a bunch of minor dictionaries, and I can't choose! WHich would be best for me. do you think? 76.229.212.31 (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable internet access, there's not much need to have a print dictionary anymore. Between things like http://www.merriam-webster.com (for basics), http://wiktionary.org (good for idioms and stuff), and Google and Urban Dictionary (for slang, if you can take things with a grain of salt), you can find more stuff online than you can in a print dictionary, and you can usually find it faster. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care about etymology and the history of the words you're using? Do you want archaic and obsolete words, or is your interest only in words that are currently in use? I'm heavily in favour of the Oxford English Dictionary, but if you're only interested in current meanings of current words, you'll be wasting your money if you get it or an abridged version thereof. If you want the etymology, you could do well to get the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, an abridgement of the OED, while if you don't, you could do well to get the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, which is basically the OED minus the etymologies and other historical data. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for "how to choose a dictionary" and I found the following.

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a reasonably portable general-use US dictionary, I like Merriam-Webster's Collegiate. (BTW, there are a bunch of cheap knock-offs called "Webster's", so you want the 'Merriam' in there.) If you want something really comprehensive, the OED is the only way to fly. — kwami (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the M-W Collegiate is what I tend to use for quick consultation, I'll put in a word for The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as a very serviceable general-purpose dictionary. The OP says that he/she would like illustrations, and the photographic ones in the AHDEL surpass the drawings that tend to be used elsewhere. The Indo-European appendix is also a splendid feature. Deor (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me second the nomination of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, even though it's British and I'm American. It's thorough and well-grounded and doesn't seem to have any weird lapses. I find the American Heritage Dictionary very unreliable and much too inclined to give bad usage a pass just because the usage has become common. (By bad usage, I mean usages that are redundant, illogical, or unclear, not just new.) The American dictionary I like the best is Merriam-Webster's Collegiate. Evangeline (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shorter OED is the way to go; I wouldn't trust an American dictionary to get regional variations correct and from experience find them unreliable. Americans (yes, even the lexicographers) are weirdly obsessed with their particular usage and spellings. The Oxford, on the other hand, knows everything about English and will give you the bigger picture. If the two-volume Shorter is "too much dictionary", there is a whole range, including a "mini", see here: [1] Maedin\^talk 21:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Webster's New World Dictionary, the official dictionary of the Associated Press. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the one-volume dictionaries I've ever seen, my favorite is easily the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (hardcover; circa 1600 pages), IF it includes the "Indo-European Roots" appendix. No contest. 63.17.52.133 (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telestian

Speaking of the OED, does anyone have one handy? Is 'Telestian' both of the Earth and of Telesto? What of 'Telestrial'? Is there a 'Telestean'? — kwami (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't be "of the Earth"; you're probably thinking of "tellurian", which is from "tellus" (related to "terra" and the forms derived from that). The OED doesn't have any of those words, incidentally. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've seen something like this very occasionally, and I thought it might have s.t. to do with the Terra-Tellus connection. A Google Books search turns up A Life After Death Experience, which says there are 7 "dimensions", Terrestrial, Extra-terrestrial, Telestrial, Extra-telestrial, Telestial, Extra-telestial, and Celestial. Unless s.o. just made those up. — kwami (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C.S. Lewis always used the term "Tellurian" in his science fiction trilogy, and I kind of prefer that word to the Latin-derived "Terran", although the latter is more common in modern SF. I think "terrestrial" has a slightly different nuance to it, encompassing small-e earth (land, etc.) rather than just Earth as a planetary object. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Terrestrial/terrestrial is ambiguous the same way Earth/earth is. "Tellurian" does seem to have gone out of fashion. — kwami (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds made up to me... Adam Bishop (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see online there's a "Saonian" in the OED. What's the root? (Sorry, I don't have access to my copy.) — kwami (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no Saonian in the OED. (Or anything similar.) Gwinva (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may just be in the more recent Compact OED then. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the OED online, so I don't think it can be in any OED. There isn't Telestian, Telesto, Telestrial or Telestean either (as stated by Adam above) but there is telestic meaning " Of or pertaining to the mysteries, or to a hierophant; mystical", and telestial has a meaning to Mormons ("of or pertaining to the lowest degree of glory"). I think the planet and moon resident words are often invented by Science Fiction writers, but never gained sufficient usage to be listed in dictionaries. Dbfirs 17:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The (or "a") token Mormon contributor on the reference desk will interject here and clarify the above statement. :-) Our belief is that God is perfectly just and as such, will reward all men perfectly justly. Because of this, we don't believe in a Heaven/Hell dichotomy. Instead, we believe that "Heaven," per se, consists of many kingdoms with three main divisions: Celestial being the highest, Terrestrial being lower than that, and Telestial being lower than that. We believe that Paul wrote about exactly this principle here. Doctrine and Covenants, section 76, starting at verse 50, also explains this principle in greater detail. Kingsfold (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I get my fiction stories critiqued?

I used to work on some fiction pieces in my Creative Fiction Writing class at K-State. I had a good amount of critiques and revisions, but when I want to keep working on them, there have to be opportunities elsewhere, and most likely online.

Where can I submit chapters of my stories and receive a chapter-by-chapter critique of them? (I'll be sure to submit just one chapter at a time just so it doesn't feel too overwhelming for the critiquers.) --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a better question for the Humanities reference desk. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised we only mention one in our article. Anyway, why don't you consult Absolute Write – they will be able to point you to the best places where the critiques are actually useful. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Is is"

Someone recently edited the article Shufflepuck Café to make this:

The General (also known as Eneg Doowtrop - "Gene Portwood" spelled backwards): A pig-like alien who pretends to be a military general, although all he really is is a militaristic gung-ho enthusiast. Recently divorced, he is addicted to shufflepuck, which he plays with fierceness and devotion.

into this:

The General (also known as Eneg Doowtrop - "Gene Portwood" spelled backwards): A pig-like alien who pretends to be a military general, although all he really is a militaristic gung-ho enthusiast. Recently divorced, he is addicted to shufflepuck, which he plays with fierceness and devotion.

I don't think "all he really is a militaristic gung-ho enthusiast" is even grammatically correct, let alone the correct meaning. The way I see it, the original version means that a militaristic gung-ho enthusiast is all that Eneg really is. In other words, Eneg is a militaristic gung-ho enthusiast, even though he pretends to be something else.

Now English is not my native language, and I am not even bilingual in it - I learned it as an entirely foreign language, albeit in my early school years. But I still think I know the grammar fairly well. Am I correct here? JIP | Talk 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Algebraist 19:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, you are correct; another is is definitely needed. Some English style guides recommend that a comma be used in "all he really is, is a militaristic gung-ho enthusiast" simply to avoid the odd appearance of "is is" in such situations. Deor (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x2 You're right, the edit was incorrect, although the 'is is' looks strange - A pig-like alien who pretends to be a military general, although really he is just a militaristic gung-ho enthusiast. would probably be better though. Mikenorton (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I thought I was right, but as English is not my native language, I wasn't sure. I have edited the article to use Mikenorton's suggestion. JIP | Talk 19:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was just a typical automation error...tools like AWB look for common typos such as "the the", "that that", etc., and here it had a false positive ("is is" is a common typo, but in this case it's actually the correct wording). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What he is is ... is in the same class of expressions as No, that's not what I said. What I said was "<...>". It has its place when a certain type of contrast is wanted, but often it's possible to get by quite nicely without it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(See Pseudocleft) rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the second is is is needed in that sentence. 81.131.4.58 (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An extreme example here. --Магьосник (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[You can see more examples at List of linguistic example sentences. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]