The American Heritage Dictionary of
the English Language
The latest edition of the American Heritage Dictionary is out, and thats hot news--not just for the resolute fol owers of lexicographical minutiae, but for the general reading and writing public as well. Why? Because the American Heritage is a long-standing favorite family dictionary (never underestimate the value of pictures) and one of the prime dictionary references for magazines, newspapers, and dot.com content providers. For scads of writers and editors across the U.S., it sets the standard on matters of style and lexicographical authority. So this new edition is exciting and noteworthy, but how good is it? In its favor, the fourth edition is as current a dictionary as you can get. Its six years fresher than the 1994 version, with 10,000 words and definitions you wont find in the still venerable but now slightly dated third edition. For example, unlike its predecessor (and also unlike the 1996 Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary), this fourth edition covers dot-com, e-commerce, and soccer mom, Ebonics, Viagra, and a surf definition for cruising television channels and the Internet. Its panel of special consultants includes authorities on anthropology, architecture, cinema, and law, plus military science, music, religion, and sports, and that is reflected in an impressively comprehensive coverage of the arts, culture, and technology. Sadly, however, there are no medical consultants on the panel, and that loss is felt in some substandard medical definitions. Other flaws: theres a greater than usual tendency to define a word with a form of the same word--for example, fuzzy, whose first two definitions are 1. c overed with fuzz. and 2. of or resembling fuzz. And some definitions seem needlessly wordy, such as the entry for furious, which is full of or characterized by
extreme anger; raging. Compare that with the more succinct Oxford
Encyclopedic entry: 1. extremely angry. 2. full of fury. On the other hand,
there are valuable entries throughout the dictionary supplying additional
information on synonyms, usage, or word history, and these extras, such
as the history of diatribe and the usage notes on discomfit, are interesting.
The layout is easy on the eyes, with dark blue/green bold type setting the
words apart from their definitions, and 4,000 color photographs, maps,
and illustrations that are both useful and delightful. On one page, the
margin provides color depictions of Francis Bacon, bacterium, and a
Bactrian camel. Theodore Roosevelt and a rooster share another margin,
while a third page offers Isak Dinesen, a dingo, and dinoflagellate. It is a
fascinating book to peruse, and a compellingly scholarly addition to the
American Heritage Dictionary line. --Stephanie Gold
* Sold As: Each Personal Review: The American Heritage Dictionary of the
This is a very helpful dictionary and its size makes it easy to carry or easy -
reach. I in particular liked the witty definitions. It is by far the best dictionary
I have owned, despite its size.
For More 5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price:
Ground-breaking new trial seeks people with psychosis to take part Researchers at the University of Edinburgh and NHS Lothian are launching a clinical trial to investigate the affects of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy in people with psychosis who are currently taking antipsychotic medication.
The nine month trial of the new treatment is being funded with a £1.9 million grant from the H
Summary of DDMAC Enforcement Correspondence January 2007 In January 2007, FDA’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC) posted one warning letter and two untitled letters on its website.1 The letters addressed the issues below. This summary describes only DDMAC’s allegations. It does not reflect the recipient’s response or analysis by Covington & Burli