Larousse Unabridged Dictionary: Spanish-English / English-Spanish (Larousse Unabridged) 
asked by pauls on October 29, 2006 11:25 PM
This completely new edition of the Larousse Unabridged Dictionary is the ideal reference work for students, teachers, and translators as well as general users with a high-level interest in the Spanish language. The cornerstone of the Larousse bilingual Spanish line, this in-depth reference is specially designed to make translation into or out of either language clear and easy. This authoritative reference is packed with useful features: - NEW! 20 pages of thematic color illustrations - 250,000 words and phrases - 400,000 translations - extensive coverage of general, technical, business, and literary vocabulary - generous coverage of Latin American Spanish - hundreds of abbreviations, acronyms, and proper nouns - boxed entries explaining items of particular cultural interest - a supplement with information on Spanish-speaking countries - Spanish verb tables Rich in content and easy to use, this comprehensive dictionary is a must-have for any Spanish reference collection.
Reviews
0%
0%
Yes, I read the previous reviews on missing pages and hope that I would not have the same problem. Unfortunately, I have discovered some missing pages. In my short time, I have discovered pages 61 to 76 of the English-Spanish section to be missing. Don't know what else is missing. I guess I will find out.
Aside from the missing pages, it is by its very nature very comprehensive (that's why I bought it), and gives lots of different examples for most of the words. If not for the missing pages, I would recommend it as a desk reference copy (obviously not for travel). Who can I complain to about the missing pages?
Aside from the missing pages, it is by its very nature very comprehensive (that's why I bought it), and gives lots of different examples for most of the words. If not for the missing pages, I would recommend it as a desk reference copy (obviously not for travel). Who can I complain to about the missing pages?
reviewed by squeege on November 14, 2006 2:15 AM
0%
0%
I just purchased this dictionary at the beginning of the month, but unfortunately I had to return it back to Amazon for the second time. I had used previous editions of this dictionary while doing professional translations and now that I am freelancing, decided to get the latest edition to assist me with my projects. I was impressed to see how much the dictionary has improved over the years both in terms of content, layout and overall presentation and usefulness. In that respect, this dictionary deserves 4 or 5 stars. However, the first time my order was fulfilled, I went through every single page of the dictionary to make sure there were no missing pages (see earlier reviews from other users), as I did not want any unpleasant surprises later on. This proved to be a wise decision. Although there were no missing pages in either copy, both were defective. It seems that there is a printing problem with this edition, as several pages in the Spanish section of the dictionary were smudged with the printer's ink, thus rendering the text illegible. As I've indicated, this happened in the original as well as the replacement copy Amazon sent me. Because of this oversight or disregard for quality control by the publishing company I cannot recommend the purchase of this dictonary. Maybe there are good copies of this edition out there, but I am not taking any more chances and will be purchasing the Oxford Spanish Dictionary instead, which does not seem to have the same quality control or printing issues. ** By the way, I meant to give this review only 2 stars, not five! **
reviewed by motivations on November 20, 2006 6:57 AM
0%
0%
My Master's thesis was a review and rating of large Spanish-English dictionaries. Since then, I have conducted follow-up studies to keep up with the market.
I find the leaders in the field to be Collins (HarperCollins), Larousse, and Oxford. Each publisher appears to be trying to one-up the others with the newest and best edition. The real winner is the consumer. My joint review of these three dictionaries is found here and duplicated under both of its competitors.
Here are a few of the factors which distinguish a good bilingual dictionary from a bad one.
To begin with, ignore certain publishers' marketing ploys such as entry and translation counts. They says nothing about the value of the words chosen. Likewise, ignore the word "unabridged" in the title. No work is truly unabridged except the monumental monolingual Oxford English Dictionary.
The first valid factor to consider is lexicographic technique. A bad dictionary simply lists translations. Take, for example, the entry in the Cassell's Spanish Dictionary under the English headword loop: "lazo, gaza, nudo; ojal, presilla, alamar; anillo; recodo, comba, curva, vuelta," etc. For the English reader writing in Spanish, this is hopelessly inadequate, as the dictionary provides no clue as to which translation to use in which situation.
Compare the treatment of the same word in the far superior American Heritage Spanish Dictionary. "(length of line) lazo; (coil) vuelta; (bend) curva; (circular path) vuelta, circuito; (fastener) presilla" etc. Here, the user is given glosses in the native language to assist in identifying the right word for the context. Example sentences are also a tremendous help. The Collins, Larousse, and Oxford are all excellent in this respect, presenting a wealth of practical information to guide users through the semantic and syntactic complexities.
The second factor is organization, which is important in large desk dictionaries. In an entry for a complex word like "get," a bad dictionary may force users to lose time searching for their translation through unbroken columns that can extend for more than a page. This was a problem--now corrected--in previous versions of the large Larousse dictionary. Today, the current editions of the Larousse, Collins and Oxford use similar organization schemes, dividing long entries by meaning into well-titled paragraphs. This scheme makes these dictionaries a joy to use.
Third, a good dictionary should maintain an up-to-date lexicon, including such cultural and technological additions to the language as "baby sitter," "hostile takeover," "software," "flash drive." Larousse, Collins and Oxford are leaders in this respect; their frequent revisions are more than mere window dressing and do a creditable job of covering the most recent additions to the language.
Fourth, idioms, slang, and cusswords can present real problems to the language learner, and a dictionary needs to handle them in a clear and frank fashion. All three dictionaries get it right, giving stylistic equivalents for translations as well as clear advice to the user.
One complaint about the Collins is that it often presents Britishisms without labeling them as such. Revisions have only partially corrected the problem. For this reason, I would not recommend this dictionary to native Spanish speakers in the US.
Oxford and Collins contain excellent "language in use" sections which give formulas for language functions such as asking for information, agreeing, disagreeing, etc., as well as formulas for letters and documents.
The bottom line on large dictionaries? Avoid Vox, Velasquez, and Cassell's. Simon & Schuster's may serve as part of a collection but is unsuitable as a user's only dictionary. I will report on the large Harrap's when I examine it, but my opinion of their other dictionaries is quite favorable. While not perfect, Collins, Oxford, and Larousse are the best large Spanish-English dictionaries I have examined. Except as noted here, most users would be well served by any of the three.
I find the leaders in the field to be Collins (HarperCollins), Larousse, and Oxford. Each publisher appears to be trying to one-up the others with the newest and best edition. The real winner is the consumer. My joint review of these three dictionaries is found here and duplicated under both of its competitors.
Here are a few of the factors which distinguish a good bilingual dictionary from a bad one.
To begin with, ignore certain publishers' marketing ploys such as entry and translation counts. They says nothing about the value of the words chosen. Likewise, ignore the word "unabridged" in the title. No work is truly unabridged except the monumental monolingual Oxford English Dictionary.
The first valid factor to consider is lexicographic technique. A bad dictionary simply lists translations. Take, for example, the entry in the Cassell's Spanish Dictionary under the English headword loop: "lazo, gaza, nudo; ojal, presilla, alamar; anillo; recodo, comba, curva, vuelta," etc. For the English reader writing in Spanish, this is hopelessly inadequate, as the dictionary provides no clue as to which translation to use in which situation.
Compare the treatment of the same word in the far superior American Heritage Spanish Dictionary. "(length of line) lazo; (coil) vuelta; (bend) curva; (circular path) vuelta, circuito; (fastener) presilla" etc. Here, the user is given glosses in the native language to assist in identifying the right word for the context. Example sentences are also a tremendous help. The Collins, Larousse, and Oxford are all excellent in this respect, presenting a wealth of practical information to guide users through the semantic and syntactic complexities.
The second factor is organization, which is important in large desk dictionaries. In an entry for a complex word like "get," a bad dictionary may force users to lose time searching for their translation through unbroken columns that can extend for more than a page. This was a problem--now corrected--in previous versions of the large Larousse dictionary. Today, the current editions of the Larousse, Collins and Oxford use similar organization schemes, dividing long entries by meaning into well-titled paragraphs. This scheme makes these dictionaries a joy to use.
Third, a good dictionary should maintain an up-to-date lexicon, including such cultural and technological additions to the language as "baby sitter," "hostile takeover," "software," "flash drive." Larousse, Collins and Oxford are leaders in this respect; their frequent revisions are more than mere window dressing and do a creditable job of covering the most recent additions to the language.
Fourth, idioms, slang, and cusswords can present real problems to the language learner, and a dictionary needs to handle them in a clear and frank fashion. All three dictionaries get it right, giving stylistic equivalents for translations as well as clear advice to the user.
One complaint about the Collins is that it often presents Britishisms without labeling them as such. Revisions have only partially corrected the problem. For this reason, I would not recommend this dictionary to native Spanish speakers in the US.
Oxford and Collins contain excellent "language in use" sections which give formulas for language functions such as asking for information, agreeing, disagreeing, etc., as well as formulas for letters and documents.
The bottom line on large dictionaries? Avoid Vox, Velasquez, and Cassell's. Simon & Schuster's may serve as part of a collection but is unsuitable as a user's only dictionary. I will report on the large Harrap's when I examine it, but my opinion of their other dictionaries is quite favorable. While not perfect, Collins, Oxford, and Larousse are the best large Spanish-English dictionaries I have examined. Except as noted here, most users would be well served by any of the three.
reviewed by willie on November 26, 2006 9:54 PM