(Inspired by reading A.J. Jacobs’ The Know-It-All, the story of his quest to read the entire EB. Which seems like fun, kind of.)
The OED or the Britannica. One you get for free. The other you can never, ever consult again.
Me, I’d go with the OED. I have free access to the online edition of each through the Seattle Public Library, and I use the OED more often. Then again, I’m a writer.
I do use Britannica, and it’d be hard to replace its authority – much as I love Wikipedia, it’s a long way from being a real substitute – but I could make do.
Which of the ultimate reference guides – unabridged, naturally – would you pick?
One’s a dictionary, one’s an encylop[a]edia. The question is, do you want to know the definition of words, or do you want to know general information about various topics? Since general information comes up a lot more often than definitions of words, I’d go with the Britannica. The Know-It-All, by the way, is a great book.
OED. While Brittanica is nice, it is effectively replicated much more easily on the web. The skull sweat behind the OED is truly impressive, and unlikely to be completely duplicated anytime soon.
This answer is not in ANY way affected by my general love for J.R.R. Tolkein.
OED all the way. The work behind it is just amazing to me, as a linguist and student of English. Everyday I come up with a question that is at least partially answered by the OED, and I can hit the “Lost for Words” button for hours, looking at all sorts of random words. Plus, I have an obsession with James A. H. Murray, the editor that did the bulk of the editing of the first edition; I even knitted a finger-puppet version of him. He’s just so darn cute … in a breath-takingly brilliant, eccentric kind of way.
Britannica, no contest. Much more detailed than almost any other general source of information. I almost never need to know the historical background of words, so rarely need to consult OED. A regular unabridged dictionary is fine for me most of the time.
I don’t understand the choice since they are for two difference purposes.
It made for entertaining reading, but I recall that the author made surprising mistakes in his writing. (Didn’t he edit or something for a living?) Wish I could give you an example, but it’s been a year or so since my husband read it to me.
Since it was read aloud to me, that makes me think that the errors were in his comprehension of what he had read.
I would have to say the Britannica, both for fact-finding and casual reading. There are very few words even a highly involved reader will run into that can’t either be found in an average dictionary or deduced from context. In contrast, there is tons of information you won’t know that can only be found in a major reference work like the Britannica. The Britannica’s best feature is that you can also read it for enjoyment. The modern versions are OK for that, but versions like the 11th (c. 1895) and 14th (1929) are fantastic to just sit down and read. Not only are they written in a very literary style, but it’s fascinating to see how people from a different era viewed events and historical figures.
True, but that’s not what the OED is for. OED for me, although my answer would be different if I didn’t have access to a decent library and/or the internet.
That’s kind of the point. There’s a sacrifice involved – which ultimate English-language reference book would you want?
OED vs. American Heritage Dictionary or EB vs. Wikipedia are different comparisons – like vs. like. This is contrasting, more of a Ginger vs. Mary Ann situation.
The OED is the definitive source for questions of word usage, etymology, and the like. The Britannica, while highly respected, isn’t definitive on any score. Even without the Internet, I could replace the Britannica with a well-stocked library with a card catalog, but I couldn’t say the same about the OED. And I’m saying this as someone who did, indeed, while away many hours as a youth reading through random Britannica articles (usually when I was supposed to be researching something else).
Not least of which being that I think the 20 volume set is just cooler - a dictionary that needs its own bookcase? How cool is that? On a more serious level, I no longer trust Brittanica. I recently (i.e. within several years) had reason to look up their general article on ‘wreckers,’ and they had a nicely written thing from a UNSA teacher, who was claiming, up, down and sideways that there had never been such communities. Which would be a lot more believable if I’d not read sources quoting records of the RN making amphibious punative assualts on wrecking villiages.
I grant you, it’s a very, very narrow focus. But, dammit, it did piss me off - I was looking for citations for those RN records, and being told they couldn’t possibly exist was infuriating.
