[Macworld]

Post your comments for Review: More iPhone dictionary apps here

[dreyfus]

I went through the same painful and expensive process. I did not buy the Webster 60 USD piece so - after reading the name Paragon, it was obvious that it is the same poor software that already spoils the reputation of PONS, Oxford and the German Duden on the AppStore.
I finally ended up with the American Heritage and WordBook on my iPhone. I do use WordBook a lot more - having the Weblinks and synonyms available is greater value for me than images and sound files (reading IPA is not that hard after all). I mainly boot up AHD if I need more details on etymology or if a word is missing in WordBook (happens rarely, but happens).
While I did not experience the "blank page" symptom with AHD and found quite a few illustrations and maps... I still have a few minor issues with it:
- text size and font type cannot be adjusted (serif fonts on a screen do not look like print, they just look odd)
- cannot tap words to look them up
- no links to Wikipedia/Google
- poor poor poor formatting of front- and backmatter - but well hidden behind info and about buttons, so it will not bother many; margins and paragraph spacing would make reading a lot more convenient
- no bulk delete for the history
- copyright statement on every page is a bit laughable
Still, the AHD is otherwise great, great contents, great bookmark feature with notes feature (love that!), history, "see also" links, sound plus IPA. I would really like a "AHD4/Roget's Bundle", so I could have the dictionary and a good thesaurus in one application. WordBook is doing that extremely well.

[Wondercow]

As a Canadian and an English linguist looking for a good, proper dictionary I was disappointed with the Oxford offerings. I have the complete OED Second Edition (yes, the twenty-volume set) and it's a little much to carry around on the off-chance I may need to reference a word. Needless to say I would pay handsomely for an iPhone/iPod Touch edition but, alas, I came to the same conclusions as Mr Boychuk.
I purchased the American Heritage app—mainly because I would never, ever be caught with a Webster's (ever!), but also because it has the forwards of the print edition, British English (read proper ;) ) spellings and definitions, good etymology (including PIE and IE roots), and audio. My only true complaint is that the audio clips are not of good quality; other than that I'm quite happy with it. I have the same "blank definition" problem, but I find the quicker fix is to change the font size—do that and the text will appear (and it need not be changed and changed back, just once will do it).
Thanks for the review; hopefully this will help others looking for a good mobile dictionary.

[RichardNorthcott]

From "American Heritage Dictionary Fourth Edition" application developer:

Thank you for your kind review. (and also to all our fervent users)

To offer a heads-up to everyone, a major upgrade for the AHD4 iPhone app is coming in the next week or so.

I don't want to spoil the surprise, but there are a lot of changes on the way. Expect to see improvements in the UI and additional features -like tap-lookup in definitions. We started out with an upgrade roadmap that already covered most requests, but we also listen carefully to our users.

Like all else, in software you-get-what-you-pay-for. That is why Enfour strives to be the best. We have been making dictionary software since before some of our users were born and writing mobile software for more than 15 years. But, we are not resting on our laurels at all. We will strive to bring our years of experience as well as best-of-breed titles to the iPhone. So, look forward to more quality releases from Enfour for a long time to come.

-----
In answer to "dreyfus" (we can not answer user reviews on iTunes):
We have tried to stick to the look of the original book as much as possible.
Lexicographers often use serif and san-serif typefaces to stress or differentiate words within definitions. The printed AHD4 uses san-serif for headwords and derivatives. We have kept this formating in the iPhone application. The same goes for the copyright notice (which is required by the publisher). This is the same as the desktop version. (Rest assured the data is only stored once inside the app!)
External links are sticky issue for reference titles. Neither Enfour nor AH's editors can vouch for Wikipedia or Google results -what we need is Copy/Paste!
-----

Cheers,

Richard Northcott, President, Enfour, Inc. Tokyo

[RichardNorthcott]

sss

[Flighter]

Off topic, but Wondercow and others may be interested to know that some so-called "American" spelling came over with the first settlers to the US, and hence pre-dates the current "British English (read proper) spellings". Therefore some US spellings and words, such as the lack of the "u" in words like "color" and the use of words like "gotten" (particularly in the NE of the US) are older versions of English, which arguably makes them more correct to some. The British spelling of "colour" and the like is said to be the result a brief flirtation the English had with all things French, which influenced spelling.

[Wondercow]

Flighter said:

Off topic, but Wondercow and others may be interested to know that some so-called "American" spelling came over with the first settlers to the US, and hence pre-dates the current "British English (read proper) spellings". Therefore some US spellings and words, such as the lack of the "u" in words like "color" and the use of words like "gotten" (particularly in the NE of the US) are older versions of English, which arguably makes them more correct to some. The British spelling of "colour" and the like is said to be the result a brief flirtation the English had with all things French, which influenced spelling.

"Colour" did indeed come from French, but it was Old French, and it wasn't as a result of "a brief flirtation the English had with all things French", but rather a little thing history calls the Norman Invasion (or Conquest) in 1066; this was, linguistically, the end of the Old English period and the beginning of Middle English. The Old Latin word for "colour" was colos, which became color in Latin, and colur in Old French. English gained the word as colour (with the "u") c.1225 during the middle of the Middle English period. (Since Old English didn't have a specific word for colour, there wasn't an evolution of an existing English word.) While many -our words have origins in French, none entered English as -or --they were all originally -our. Without getting too off-topic :) the driving force behind Americans changing -our to -or and -re to -er is Noah Webster. A very strong Nationalist, he pushed forward American English in his An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). In short, Americans changed their spellings in an effort to get away from England, not because said spellings were original.

As for "gotten"--it is most definitely the correct past participle of get. Though both gotten and got (as pp of get ) entered at Middle English, it can be held that since gotten has roots in Old English gietan it is the more correct word. As for Modern English, both pp have a place in North American English. The built-in OS X dictionary sums it up nicely:
bq. In North American English, got and gotten are not identical in use. Gotten usually implies the process of obtaining something ( : he has gotten two tickets for the show ), while got implies the state of possession or ownership ( : he hasn?t got any money ).

And why'd you leave out my smiley in your quote?

Message was edited by: Wondercow for clarification of those sneaky Normans and word origins

[Flighter]

I don't profess to be an expert, and sadly, I cannot recollect the exact source of the information I was given. However, I will quote O. Wallace who left this info on the web:

(quote) "Some British scholars as early as the 16th and 17th centuries thought that -or should only be used for words derived from Latin origins, while -our should only be used for French derivations. Although most of the words that end in -or and -our are of Latin and Old French origins, and both endings were used interchangeably, after the Norman Conquest, spelling switched to strictly using -our in an effort to pay tribute to the old French pronunciations of the words.

A London court called the Old Bailey ruled in the 17th century that -our endings were the correct British spelling. It became commonly accepted in Britain that in cases where an English suffix or suffixes of Greek or Latin origins are attached, the u is kept. This is demonstrated in the word neighbourhood. The difference comes with Latin suffixes that don?t attach freely to words, such as in vigorous. In these cases, the u can be retained or dropped." (end quote)

So Wallace cites both forms as once being used interchangeably, and as the Pilgrims likely settled America prior to, or around the time of the reputed ruling, it sounds plausible to me at least that they brought the version sans "u" with them. Perhaps "paying tribute" to the French as Wallace wrote is related to the period of flirtation the English had with the French mentioned previously. I can't say on whether Wallace is an expert on such issues, so readers can take from his comments what they wish.

As for "gotten" vs. "got", I am referring to personal experience in an English-speaking Commonwealth country where the use of the word "gotten" is completely non-existent, occasionally even resulting in questions from those who hear it uttered. The word was recently covered on a TV spot here that deals with language issues as being one generally only heard in the USA, particularly in the NE (Pilgrim country). She specifically mentioned its documented use by early settlers to the USA and subsequently its virtual death in England itself. Given her academic background, I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements she made, particularly as it correlates well with my own experiences.

I have no particular position on the issue of "American spelling" other than being tired of hearing the term used in a derogatory way (this is not to suggest that you did, only that most do). Yes, such spelling is now synonymous with the USA, and yes Noah Webster may have rebelled against "English" spelling, but that may not be the whole story. I use the conventions of the country I reside in, where ever that may be, apart from such obviously ridiculous terms such as "pre-prepared", which is gaining ground here. I always look to the Oxford English dictionary first, simply because of their unmatched record of study into the origins of English, which includes "American" spelling, giving me a choice depending on intended audience. As such, no one familiar with my use of English could accuse me as being on a crusade to defend American spelling; only that I am curious of its origin. Thanks to your comments, I one day intend to learn more of Webster's opinions and actions.

Finally, I apologise unreservedly if my accidental omission of your smiley face in my quotation has caused others to believe that you were being derogatory in your comment. Fortunately the original quotation is still there for all to see.

[Wondercow]

What follows is long and somewhat technical, though only mildly. If you read the whole post, I hope it helps to clear up some things and spur thought and interest. I encourage you, Flighter, or anyone else reading (yeah right!) to do their own research.

Flighter said:

I don't profess to be an expert, and sadly, I cannot recollect the exact source of the information I was given. However, I will quote O. Wallace who left this info on the web:

(quote) "Some British scholars as early as the 16th and 17th centuries thought that -or should only be used for words derived from Latin origins, while -our should only be used for French derivations. Although most of the words that end in -or and -our are of Latin and Old French origins, and both endings were used interchangeably, after the Norman Conquest, spelling switched to strictly using -our in an effort to pay tribute to the old French pronunciations of the words.

I think I remember this.... from WiseGeek, right? (After checking I see that it is.) I'd suggest you find a better source than this; it's simplistic, not well-written (it's rife with grammatical mistakes), and some of the points she makes are tenuous, or, at least, not well supported. Of course, as with many things in academia (especially where history long past is concerned), there are differing opinions. Other than her brief bio at the aforementioned site, I don't know anything about Olivia Wallace. What I can say is that there are a few things in this article that have always made me wonder. While I do agree that language is ever evolving, I disagree with her assertion that a change to -our happened "after the Norman Conquest . . . in an effort to pay tribute." As a basis for my dismissal of this point I proffer this: her point suggests that prior to the Conquest both -or and -our were used interchangeably, but this is simply not true. The Norman Invasion in 1066 ushered in a change in language and moved English to the period of Middle English. Prior to 1066 the language was Old English (Anglo-Saxon, but let's not split hairs) and was vastly different--so much so that it's generally considered to be a different language altogether. This is important because
# Very little of Old English is based on Latin; it's more than most people seem to think, but still just a fraction of the lexicon
# As the conquerors, the Normans forced a change in language and greatly influenced the path of English

Since Latin uses -or there were few such words in use in Old English (and those that were generally came from Old French), but there were some that used -our. However, most of our -our words come from Old French--and entered the language after 1066.

So it seems strange that prior to 1066 the people who spoke a related but completely different language would have used -or and -our interchangeably when -or didn't really exist in said language and -our generally came about after 1066.

Secondly (after all that I'm only at "secondly"?!) the wholesale change to -our wasn't "to pay tribute to the Old French", but rather to bring Anglo-French pronunciation in-line with the Old French pronunciation of its -or nouns (keep in mind that Old French also brought ur and -our ). After the Renaissance many people wanted to revert Latin nouns to their "original" -or endings--some changes took but most didn't. The reason I say "original" is that many (most?) of the words came to us through Old French, not Latin, so the original English words did not, in fact, ever have a Latin ending. Now, one could argue that Old French took them from Latin and therefore English could/should revert to the Latin. But why stop there? Much of Latin is from Greek, and almost all of the remainder, as well as most of the Greek language, come from Indo-European roots which in turn can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European. Because of this we generally deal with the time at which a word entered the language. (That being said I must admit that I, myself, am guilty of tracing origins back "too far". For example, did you know that the accepted standard English plural of octopus is octopuses ? But the proper plural is octopodes ? It's a Greek word and thus follows Greek pluralization, not the standards of Latin plurals--it's not octopi.)

The article is correct that some English scholars wanted to change the endings to represent a given word's origin. As already noted this is because Old French and Latin used -our and -or, respectively.

Quote

A London court called the Old Bailey ruled in the 17th century that -our endings were the correct British spelling. It became commonly accepted in Britain that in cases where an English suffix or suffixes of Greek or Latin origins are attached, the u is kept. This is demonstrated in the word neighbourhood. The difference comes with Latin suffixes that don?t attach freely to words, such as in vigorous. In these cases, the u can be retained or dropped." (end quote)

I cannot find any information on this. I've tried a variety of Google searches as well as searching the court proceedings of the Old Bailey, dating back to 1674. It's no surprise that I couldn't find any transcripts of the case in question since the court dealt with "major criminal cases" (- Wiki entry ) Now, that's not to say Olivia Wallace is wrong, but I remain skeptical.

Quote

So Wallace cites both forms as once being used interchangeably, and as the Pilgrims likely settled America prior to, or around the time of the reputed ruling, it sounds plausible to me at least that they brought the version sans "u" with them.

I don't see this as having happened for the previous, long-winded reasons.

>Perhaps "paying tribute" to the French as Wallace wrote is related to the period of flirtation the English had with the French mentioned previously. I can't say on whether Wallace is an expert on such issues, so readers can take from his comments what they wish.

There was, as a matter of fact, no "tribute". I will say without any hesitation that she is misinformed in that opinion, or exercised a poor choice of words. Refer back to long-winded explanation. She has a BA in English Lit (minor in Poli Sci), but the impression she gives through her writings does not instill confidence (to me). She makes many grammatical errors--including ones that an English major shouldn't make. Hmm.... Let me rephrase: she makes mistakes that an English Lit major may make, but a linguist shouldn't e.g., she uses the terms ?American? English and ?Americanized? spellings (quotation marks are hers) when American English is a recognized dialect and thus doesn't need quotations, and Americanize is a proper, actual, recognized verb, making her use of quotes downright wrong and amateurish.

Quote

As for "gotten" vs. "got", I am referring to personal experience in an English-speaking Commonwealth country where the use of the word "gotten" is completely non-existent, occasionally even resulting in questions from those who hear it uttered. The word was recently covered on a TV spot here that deals with language issues as being one generally only heard in the USA, particularly in the NE (Pilgrim country). She specifically mentioned its documented use by early settlers to the USA and subsequently its virtual death in England itself. Given her academic background, I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements she made, particularly as it correlates well with my own experiences.

I might not have been clear, or perhaps you misunderstood--I fully agree that gotten has fallen out of favour in the U.K. (and many other countries) and is, nowadays, primarily a North American construct (as you pointed out, mainly in the northeastern states, but also much of Canada). I find it an odd curiosity in that gotten is a direct morph form Old English gietan (or gitan, whose past participle is giten ) and it used to be, centuries ago, more popular than got as a past participle, even though they both entered the language at approximately the same time. (As an aside for anyone keeping score, I do realize that "more correct" is a grammatical error.)

Quote

I have no particular position on the issue of "American spelling" other than being tired of hearing the term used in a derogatory way (this is not to suggest that you did, only that most do).

It often is, but in some ways it's deserved: purposefully decimating your language just to prove your difference is, well, silly. Not to mention that a lot of American English is seen as uneducated--even within the U.S. itself: professional writers, as a group, don't print magazines, papers, etc. containing things like "he ain't got no money, so where will he go at nite?" Even AE dictionaries don't support "nite" as proper (though since I don't have a Webster's I can't speak for it).

Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting AE deserves all the trashing it gets, just that I can see why it is often looked upon as "poor English"--even by many Americans.

>Yes, such spelling is now synonymous with the USA, and yes Noah Webster may have rebelled against "English" spelling, but that may not be the whole story.

May have? He did! And while I don't doubt that there is more to the story, that is--in simplicity--the bulk of it.

I use the conventions of the country I reside in, where ever that may be, apart from such obviously ridiculous terms such as "pre-prepared", which is gaining ground here.

Ugh. Australia? Do keep in mind, though, that "obviously ridiculous" comes at different thresholds for different people.

>I always look to the Oxford English dictionary first, simply because of their unmatched record of study into the origins of English, which includes "American" spelling, giving me a choice depending on intended audience. As such, no one familiar with my use of English could accuse me as being on a crusade to defend American spelling; only that I am curious of its origin.

Good choice (a concise or abridged version, I assume). You should see what's going into the OED, Third Edition--it's due for completion in 2037 (Wiki) or "unlikely to finish before 2018." (Oxford Press)

>Thanks to your comments, I one day intend to learn more of Webster's opinions and actions.

I'd never say that Wikipedia is an authoritative source, but it's a good start--check out his entry.

Finally, I apologise unreservedly if my accidental omission of your smiley face in my quotation has caused others to believe that you were being derogatory in your comment. Fortunately the original quotation is still there for all to see.

No problem. The smilies apparently don't show as a graphic in the in-line comments and, you're right, I didn't want anybody missing it. (Though I am the first to admit that I do regularly give Americans a good ribbing about this topic.)

[RichardNorthcott]

Good to see a vibrant (dare I say 'colourful') and meaningful thread in online comments for a change.

Most people (and this review) probably have missed the "Australian Oxford Dictionary" which has just gone on sale. This is because it is only available on the Australian and New Zealand AppStores.

It, of course, has 'colour' as the correct spelling. Aussies know nothing about Latin, Old French or Pilgrims, so it doesn't shed any light on why it got that way. But there is a whole appendix on electronic communication with 'BTW'-style abbreviations and emoticons (smilies).

Cheers.

[Flighter]

It's clearly a topic that arouses great passion in some people. I've lived in several English speaking countries, and in my experience, every one of them has butchered "the Queen's English" in their own way, which is why I sometimes find it rather annoying to hear Americans singled out time and again. Just spend some time in the UK and see what they are doing to it themselves.

Personally, I find it completely plausible that no one person is responsible for American spelling. Although I've heard others say things in support that view, I acknowledge that that I haven't been able to cite sources that are universally accepted as authoritative, and of course, that each is entitled to his own opinion on the subject. I'm not about to defend the views of others who have gone on the record, such as Wallace, as that's their job, not mine. I quoted her verbatim, and made no claim as to her own authority on the matter, leaving it to the reader to form his own opinion just as I have. My education has encouraged keeping an open mind to alternative points of view, which I think is a good thing in general, and which I hope I have demonstrated in my posts. That said, I think it would be difficult to demonstrate to me convincingly that "pre-prepare", which as I understand it means "to make ready before before", is anything but obviously ridiculous to someone who is reasonably well educated and willing to give it a moment of thought. Please note that this is not an open invitation to all to try to convince me otherwise, as there are much more significant things in my life than debating that term, and I'm also completely comfortable with being wrong about some things too.

[Wondercow]

Flighter said:

It's clearly a topic that arouses great passion in some people. I've lived in several English speaking countries, and in my experience, every one of them has butchered "the Queen's English" in their own way, which is why I sometimes find it rather annoying to hear Americans singled out time and again. Just spend some time in the UK and see what they are doing to it themselves.

There is a difference between the natural evolution of a language and a forced change for no other reason to be different and to set apart one dialect from the next. This is why AE is often looked upon disapprovingly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Americans are bad, evil, stupid, or ignorant due to their dialect, but just as one may study engineering and learn that Country X has standards that don't follow most international conventions, so too does one who studies (the English) language learn that AE is likewise afflicted.

Quote

Personally, I find it completely plausible that no one person is responsible for American spelling.

You don't have to believe me if you so choose, but as you have an expertise in some field of study, so do I. It wasn't one person who proclaimed "this is the way we will spell from now on!" just as it wasn't one man (Marx) who proclaimed "there will be communism!" and thus there was communism. However, the one person credited with the shift in AE is Noah Webster:
bq. It was Noah Webster who finally achieved the divorce between English example and American practise. He struck the first blow in his ?Grammatical Institute of the English Language,? published at Hartford in 1783. Attached to this work was an appendix bearing the formidable title of ?An Essay on the Necessity, Advantages and Practicability of Reforming the Mode of Spelling, and of Rendering the Orthography of Words Correspondent to the Pronunciation,? and during the same year, at Boston, he set forth his ideas a second time in the first edition of his ?American Spelling Book.? The influence of this spelling-book was immediate and profound. It took the place in the schools of Dilworth?s ?Aby-sel-pha,? the favorite of the generation preceding, and maintained its authority for fully a century. . . . The current movement toward a general reform of English-American spelling is of American origin, and its chief supporters are Americans today. Its actual father was Webster, for it was the long controversy over his simplified spellings that brought the dons of the American Philological Association to a serious investigation of the subject. -- H.L. Mencken, The American Language , 1921

In 1875 a committee was appointed by the APA with the mandate of researching the reform of English. The UK was jointly involved for some time. In the end:
bq. In 1878 a committee of American philologists began preparing a list of proposed new spellings . . . In 1886 the American Philological Association issued independently a list of recommendations affecting about 3,500 words, and falling under ten headings. -- Mencken

As it turned out, the vast majority of the recommended changes (I can't quite recall, but I believe it was upwards of 95%) were already done by Webster and many were already in common usage throughout the US:
bq. Practically all of the changes proposed had been put forward 80 years before by Webster, and some of them had entered into unquestioned American usage in the meantime, e. g., the deletion of the u from the -our words, the substitution of er for re at the end of words, and the reduction of traveller to traveler. -- Mencken

It was Webster, not pilgrims nor English elite, who changed -our to -or . Of course there's more history to this, e.g the Simplified Spelling Board, President Roosevelt mandating certain words in government publications, and universities, papers, and periodicals refusing to make changes.

I understand that my posts may seem insistent but please believe that is not the intent. I'm simply trying to share knowledge and fact from an area where I have expertise.

>My education has encouraged keeping an open mind to alternative points of view, which I think is a good thing in general, and which I hope I have demonstrated in my posts.

As any education, be it life lessons or formal classroom, should. But there's still history and fact to be dealt with ;-)

>That said, I think it would be difficult to demonstrate to me convincingly that "pre-prepare", which as I understand it means "to make ready before before", is anything but obviously ridiculous to someone who is reasonably well educated and willing to give it a moment of thought.

I'll say it again: "ugh". "Words" like that get under my skin--talk about change just to be different. Personally, I'm intolerant of "irregardless" which, I'll admit, is less obviously ridiculous (but still, if one understands the meaning of the ir- prefix....).

[eagledavid1]

After enjoying this thoughtful exchange on the roots of the English language, I hesitate to raise a minor point. But I will anyway – Wondercow's curious use of the word decimate, as in "... purposefully decimating your language just to prove your difference is, well, silly." The OED Second Edition gives the word this meaning:"to kill, destroy or remove one in ten", or "loosely, to destroy or remove a large portion of." The former makes no sense in this context, and the latter is certainly a bit of a stretch, as is "drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of" which is offered by the New Oxford American Dictionary, in the Apple Macintosh dictionary.

[Wondercow]

eagledavid1 said:

After enjoying this thoughtful exchange on the roots of the English language, I hesitate to raise a minor point. But I will anyway – Wondercow's curious use of the word decimate, as in "... purposefully decimating your language just to prove your difference is, well, silly." The OED Second Edition gives the word this meaning:"to kill, destroy or remove one in ten", or "loosely, to destroy or remove a large portion of." The former makes no sense in this context, and the latter is certainly a bit of a stretch, as is "drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of" which is offered by the New Oxford American Dictionary, in the Apple Macintosh dictionary.

Yes, "decimate" literally means "to remove one in ten"; it comes from Latin as it was a form of punishment applied to Roman legions where there were mutineers and subverters. The men would line-up and first soldier would draw a number. Starting from that number the number ten man would be executed; down the line, every tenth man was killed--mutinous or not. It does not mean "to destroy a large portion" as many people use it these days. I stand by decimate: the figurative sense is that there was some cutting and slashing going on in redefining the language. It wasn't wholesale, it wasn't even "a lot" (whatever that means to the individual). This use is quite common and accepted, as is the literal meaning. Unfortunately, the incorrect definition is quite popular as well, but isn't accepted as proper use.

As I don't have my OED unpacked right now (from my last move--it requires a lot of space) I can't verify that definition; that is, however, the definition from the concise Oxford (again, I'm not saying that isn't the full and only defiinition, but it sounds like you're using the "short book" which lacks the figurative sense).
Message was edited by: Wondercow for a bit of clarity