the best dictionaries

[Orin Hargraves]

An interesting layman’s view about which dictionaries are best can be found at

http://slate.msn.com//?id=2091949&

Notice of this article was recently posted to the DSNA list. Readers of this
thread may find it interesting as well.

Speaking as one who has contributed to dictionaries from 7 foreign (mostly UK)
and 4 US publishers, and with malice toward none of these but with prejudices
toward a few: there are vast differences in the ways that publishers organize
the dictionary production process, and their success at doing this — planning
the thing properly in the first place, recognizing where problems exist, and
having the infrastructure in place to correct them efficiently — has a
demonstrable effect on the quality of the finished product. That said, I think
that many such quality issues are not apparent to a majority of dictionary
users, and it is after all they who buy dictionaries.

A huge amount of consultation of other dictionaries goes on in the process of
creating any given dictionary, and I have found in interesting to observe
which dictionaries lexicographers regard as absolutely necessary to consult
(at one extreme), and which dictionaries that are not even considered or found
in dictionary publishers’ offices (at the other) in this process. If imitation
is the sincerest form of flattery, a pretty good metric could be devised for
ranking dictionaries by the frequency of this sort of consultation. But of
course it would be invidious to name names.

It would be nice to think that dictionaries could be rated by which names
appear on the “football team” page, as some posters have (facetiously, I
think) suggested. If this is so I would have to note, with mild chagrin, that
three of the four ditionaries I consult most do not have my name in them, and
many that I have contributed to gather dust on my shelves!

Orin Hargraves