Word: websters
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...COURSE, Oxford-Webster comparison seems inevitable, as both parties acknowledge--or regally refuse to acknowledge--in their introductory essays. In the Webster "Tabular History of the English Language," the "Developments since 1800" list cryptically notes, "Oxford, Century and Merriam-Webster in high-flying company. Oxford, on the other hand, goes on for several pages about the OED and James Murray's gallant 37-year struggle to publish the weighty tome, but does not even mention the Webster edition. War simmers among the lexicographers...
...Webster-Collegiate, with which the OAD is intended to compete, still probably has the edge. Despite its smaller type, Webster's vastly greater scope, superior graphics (the OAD has none) and convenient thumb index (not available in the OAD) and $11.95 price tag make it still the better...
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN probably would have liked the OAD's simplicity. Words appear in large, clear, bold-face type, and even better the pronunciations are given in normal, English letters, not in the incomprehensible, upside-down, umlaut- laden code favored by Webster's and American Heritage. Franklin might be less pleased with the OAD because he doesn't appear in it. The editors mysteriously decided to include the spellings of every nation in the world and their capitals (Umtata is the capital of Transkei) but to avoid all personal names except those of the 40 Presidents of the United States. Vice...
...words, mostly by memory, and his definition of "network" set a lofty and graceful standard in lexicographic science: "anything reticulated or decussated, at equal distances, with interstices between the intersections." The OAD effort has an admirable simplicity ("an arrangement or pattern with intersecting lines") and certainly surpasses the bulky Webster entry ("a fabric or structure of cords or wires that cross at regular intervals and are knotted or secured at the crossings") but neither improves on the work of the master...
...Webster's definition of a robot begins by describing it as "a machine in the form of a human being that performs the mechanical functions of a human being." Today's robotmakers, however, are devoting very little thought to creating anything that looks or acts human. It is perfectly possible to design a robot that walks on artificial legs or speaks fluent English, but it is much cheaper and more efficient to keep the robot standing in one place and to speak to it in the soothing language of algorithms. Says David Nitzan of SRI International...