THE ICE PICK

Encarta World English Dictionary. New York : St. Martin’s Press. ISBN 0-312-22222-X. $50.00.

Words being the primary tool of all storytellers, we are always interested in dictionaries. The creation of a new one is a massive undertaking, and the editors are to be commended for doing so. By including English words from all over the planet, especially new words from computer use and the six o’clock news, they have attempted to create "a comprehensive record of English --but with a world view."

They have tried to simplify the pronunciation system which we all learned in school. (You may find their way better or even more confusing.) They give etymologies and excellent cultural notes. And to speed your search for the correct meaning when a single word has more than one, they have used bold type to draw your attention. Also, they have tried to eliminate the annoying habit most dictionaries have of defining words with other words that you then have to look up in turn. E.g., "Preservable: capable of being preserved." In the Encarta that becomes "Preservable: able to be kept safe, unchanged, or unspoiled." And they give you a sentence to illustrate. Very nice.

At various locations, charts and illustrations can be found for such things as woodwind instruments and time zones. A list in the back of the dictionary says that they "can be found at their alphabetical entry." And then you notice that "Airport codes" is listed before "Aircraft" and "Herbs" before "Hats," and you start to worry. This may be an aberration, but a dictionary should at least be able to get things in correct alphabetical order. And if you look up anything, you discover that "Weather symbols" is under "Symbols" and "Phases of the Moon" is under "Moon." I never did find "Gulf Stream." But this is one listing, not the end of the world.

Out of the one million, or so, current English words, Encarta claims to have 100,000, so you naturally can’t expect to find everything here. And even though the things I read and the words I need to look up are almost certainly not the same as yours, to give you some kind of comparison, I did my usual unscientific dictionary test of looking up my own pet one hundred words. Webster’s second edition unabridged has 78% of them, American Heritage 70%, Webster’s Collegiate 68%, and Encarta 67%.

Encarta prides itself on flagging words for offensiveness and on giving regional notes, but that is where I started having some real problems with this dictionary. E.g., "Buttonwood in the sense of ‘sycamore’ is used chiefly in the northwest [sic], from Massachusetts and Vermont. . . ." Okay, we know this is wrong. But what about a subject that we don’t know anything about. Can we trust them? An offensive term beginning with "oct-" is given the same meaning as one beginning with "quad-." We know this is wrong even if we don’t recognize the words, because "oct" means eight or one-eighth and "quad" means four or one-fourth, but what about the words we don’t know? In the entry for "Grant, Cuthbert," an offensive (to some) word is used, but nowhere defined, yet it is listed in most of my dictionaries.

Am I glad I bought the Encarta? Yes, because of the modern words it defines, its clear illustrations, and excellent explanations. Am I glad I paid only half-price for it? Yes! Would I trust it enough to use a word from it, that I otherwise didn’t know, in something I wanted to submit for publication? No, I found way too many errors in it.

It’s difficult to recommend--or advise against--a dictionary, since each person’s interests and needs are different, but my advice is that if you choose to buy this one, buy it cheap. If you choose to use it, do so very carefully.

{Published in GPIC, the Oklahoma Science Fiction Writers Newsletter, Apr. 2000.}