Good Dictionary: The Penguin English Dictionary, 2nd Edition

While we're on the subject of things British (see previous post), one of the best investments I’ve made in books in the last few years has to be my copy of The Penguin English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Robert Allen (consultant editor), Penguin Books, 2003 revision of the 2000 Penguin English Dictionary, Penguin Books, London, ISBN 014051533X. This one covers Australian, British, Canadian, North American, Northern English, New Zealand, South African, and Scottish contributions to the language, plus a few key archaic words and phrases, in addition to the worldwide or more standard words and phrases. Bless their hearts; they include phrases. And word histories. I sometimes just browse inside for the fun of it.

It’s an ambitious project, coming in at 1642 pages just in the main text (there are introductory sections on top of that), all of it fresh – that is to say they’ve worked on not only keeping it up to date, but also having better definitions than the next guy. This is not to say that it is perfect. I have quibbles with a few (very few) of the Americanisms.

(Gentlemen and ladies of the dictionary staff, if you please, a “charley horse” is not “a muscle strain or bruising resulting from strenuous exercise”. Bruises and strains linger, and ache or hurt in their own ways. Charley horses are knotted and/or otherwise contracted muscles that cause sometimes serious problems, generally hurt like fury, but usually, thank goodness, go away in a relatively short time.

Ah, but there you go. I take on one of the very few words/phrases where I think they’ve misfired, and I’m not much help. My definition is too long and convoluted. Their definitions, taken on the whole, are almost all short and dead on.)

That they do list regional words, and list them as such, is one of the most useful features for me. I read a great deal of British fiction, mostly older but some new. I read British and Scottish news on the Internet. Most of the time, of course, you don’t need a British dictionary for that. But when you want it, well…

For instance, today in The Scotsman, in the Scrutineer column in the business section, Martin Flanagan was writing about a fellow who is making noises about taking over a major clothing store. The fellow represents himself one way, but isn’t looking so solid in his background checks if I may put it that way. No, let’s be polite and do as the article headline does, and call him a “mystery man”. See: Mystery man helps keep M&S in the headlines

In his column, Flanagan is tossing around James Bond references, including "the name’s Jumper, Lambswool Jumper". Now, if you didn’t know that a jumper is what we would call a top or sweater, you would form entirely the wrong mental image, now wouldn’t you?

UPDATE: Yes, I know, in a previous post I referred to Martin Flanaghan as the author of the Scrutineer column. The Scrutineer is written by several different people in turn, and I hold to a policy of copying whatever name the paper puts at the top of that day's column. I can't help it if there is a Flanaghan one day and a Flanagan the next. Perhaps they have two fellows with similiar names.