Good But Not Great.
|
A good enough dictionary.
Unfortunately, the publishers chose to use recycled paper which has a strong odour of the caustic soda used in its processing - which discourages frequent/prolonged use.
A good number of definitions.
Poor on some definitions, esp. words from ex-colonies - e.g. "conacre" definition does not state that the letting is over just 1 year.
Not as good as Chambers on technical terms either.
|
|
Comprehensive but deficient in certain aspects
|
Summary: Comprehensive, up-to-date, but short on definitions and illustrative examples
Reviewer: A reader from Singapore
The revised eleventh edition is very comprehensive and up-to-date in its coverage of words from different varieties of English. I am particularly impressed by the large number of "informal" words and phrases that have not yet appeared in other dictionaries, even those available online.
However, I am disappointed that, to accommodate the new additions, the definitions tend to be short, so much so that the full nuance is lost. Illustrative examples of word use are also greatly reduced. Like othe recent Oxford dictionaries, it does not provide the pronunciation of many words that the editors consider familiar to native speakers of English in the UK.
I have changed my mind about giving away the eighth and ninth editions of the COD, which give more detailed information on the words that they include.
|
|
|
United States | 
United Kingdom | 
Canada