Merriam Webster or Oxford English?

So what kind of dictionary do all you people prefer? Personally, I say get that weak Merriam Webster crap out of here, but I'm interested in what everyone else has to say. aaaannnddd DISCUSS!

There are generally one of two options - either the definition of a word is simple and straightforward, in which case it doesn't really matter which dictionary one uses, or the definition of a word contains very subtle nuances that differentiate it from apparent synonyms for those who are native speakers, in which case it still doesn't really matter which dictionary one uses as these nuances are pretty much impossible to adequately express in a short, academic definition.

You may note that in neither case does it really matter; hence, my answer should be obvious. :P

Oxford English. One would expect the English to know English better than anyone else, right?

Colour has a U, as does Armour. Night and Light have a "gh". It's not a matter of culture difference, it's a matter of laziness.

Who cares? It's a freaking dictionary, as long as it gives you the definitions for a word it serves its purpose.

Oxford English. One would expect the English to know English better than anyone else, right?

Colour has a U, as does Armour. Night and Light have a "gh". It's not a matter of culture difference, it's a matter of laziness.

compost-mentis

Would you consider the lack of use of "thee" and "thou" to denote the singular informal second-person declension of the personal pronoun, and instead the use of "you" everywhere, to also be a matter of laziness?

Who cares? It's a freaking dictionary, as long as it gives you the definitions for a word it serves its purpose.

SilentSoprano

[QUOTE="compost-mentis"]

Oxford English. One would expect the English to know English better than anyone else, right?

Colour has a U, as does Armour. Night and Light have a "gh". It's not a matter of culture difference, it's a matter of laziness.

GabuEx

Would you consider the lack of use of "thee" and "thou" to denote the singular informal second-person declension of the personal pronoun, and instead the use of "you" everywhere, to also be a matter of laziness?

No, I would consider that the evolution of the English language, not the disregard for it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="compost-mentis"]

Oxford English. One would expect the English to know English better than anyone else, right?

Colour has a U, as does Armour. Night and Light have a "gh". It's not a matter of culture difference, it's a matter of laziness.

compost-mentis

Would you consider the lack of use of "thee" and "thou" to denote the singular informal second-person declension of the personal pronoun, and instead the use of "you" everywhere, to also be a matter of laziness?

No, I would consider that the evolution of the English language, not the disregard for it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="compost-mentis"]

Oxford English. One would expect the English to know English better than anyone else, right?

Colour has a U, as does Armour. Night and Light have a "gh". It's not a matter of culture difference, it's a matter of laziness.

compost-mentis

Would you consider the lack of use of "thee" and "thou" to denote the singular informal second-person declension of the personal pronoun, and instead the use of "you" everywhere, to also be a matter of laziness?

No, I would consider that the evolution of the English language, not the disregard for it.

Psst, descriptive linguistics holds that no dialect is inherently superior or inferior to another.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="compost-mentis"]

Oxford English. One would expect the English to know English better than anyone else, right?

Colour has a U, as does Armour. Night and Light have a "gh". It's not a matter of culture difference, it's a matter of laziness.

compost-mentis

Would you consider the lack of use of "thee" and "thou" to denote the singular informal second-person declension of the personal pronoun, and instead the use of "you" everywhere, to also be a matter of laziness?

No, I would consider that the evolution of the English language, not the disregard for it.

Then the difference between the two is... what?

[QUOTE="compost-mentis"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Would you consider the lack of use of "thee" and "thou" to denote the singular informal second-person declension of the personal pronoun, and instead the use of "you" everywhere, to also be a matter of laziness?

guynamedbilly

No, I would consider that the evolution of the English language, not the disregard for it.

Urban Dictionary and Encyclopedia Dramatica already wrote a version for Yanks. There is no need for me to deface the English language any further.

I like Oxford much better than Merriam.

No english.