Okay, first off: I own your product. I bought and own the book. The hard copy. The print edition. I swear by it, in fact - I am constantly singing the praises of the American Heritage Dictionary! I have been doing so for years. I appreciate the plain-stated accuracy and exactitude of the definitions, without all the namby-pamby editorializing Webster's puts into theirs. I laud the clear-eyed and unsentimental inclusion of words like "fuck" and "shit" - since way back in the day when such words simply were not found in dictionaries.
Or at least, they weren't found in the other ones mom kept on the bookshelf. But they sure were in that big ol' American Heritage! That meant a lot to me, as a kid.
So I'm not just some Johnny El Cheapo come-lately, trying to surf in on the e-version and snap up a lot of free definitions at your expense. I'm a customer - more than that, I'm brand loyal. But just because I love my big blue book with the gold gilt pages and the fat physical heft, doesn't mean I don't appreciate the ease and convenience of the online version as well, from time to time.
If it had any ease and convenience, I mean!!
Out of 91,890 "relevant results" returned in a search for the word "whom", where would one expect the actual word "whom" to place? First? Fifth? Within the first hundred pages of results, certainly?
Well, no. Such a one would expect wrong.
Past a long, long series of alphabet soup abbreviations for things like "able-bodied seaman" or Plank's constant, and a plenitude of obscure Latin terms. Past an otiose assortment of definitions for things like:
277) frost heave.
291) Graafian follicle.
321) affenpinscher.
339) batgirl.
Yep, that's right. Batgirl.
399) chylomicron.
433) corn snow.
472) dab 3.
You'll think it's going alphabetically, but then it'll start skipping around!
474) cyan.
478) Fathometer.
501) dum-dum.
533) heliolatry.
I just want to point something out here: the word I am trying to look up is "whom."
564) intestinal fortitude.
606) logic operation.
661) nombril.
That's the point on an escutcheon between the fess point and the base point. Look, I'm not saying that organizing your search function this way isn't a vocabulary-building exercise! But be that as it may, it's damned inexpedient for the searcher's purposes.
713) pooh.
No! "whom"
788) -sepalous.
Now there's a useful suffix.
859) trackless.
As in, "the trackless stretches of this search function result."
871) unperson.
Does this really need a separate entry? Seems like a simple note under "un-" would cover you. I mean, there's no entry for "undog" or "unbird" is there?
893) whippoorwill.
"Whippoorwill"! Whoo hoo, must be getting close!
894) white leather.
So close!
895) Williams, Roger.
Or perhaps not.
900) witch moth.
No, definitely not. No "whom" in sight.
908) XY recorder.
914) zero copula.
Story of my life. No, I'm kidding. It doesn't even mean that (sounds like it though, huh?).
917) zygomatic process.
The ever-popular zygomatic process! Or as I refer to it, the Bessemer Process.
918) AAF.
That will bring us back to Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti Do! With still no sign of the simple ONE WORD we have been searching for in the first place!
Is anyone else seeing a problem with this?
1053) crazy quilt.
Well, I'm glad that's in there at any rate. Shit!
I still can't find it. I'm giving it up. I'm giving up the search. Ask not for "whom".
374) B-s particle.
Indeed. An understatement.
Or at least, they weren't found in the other ones mom kept on the bookshelf. But they sure were in that big ol' American Heritage! That meant a lot to me, as a kid.
So I'm not just some Johnny El Cheapo come-lately, trying to surf in on the e-version and snap up a lot of free definitions at your expense. I'm a customer - more than that, I'm brand loyal. But just because I love my big blue book with the gold gilt pages and the fat physical heft, doesn't mean I don't appreciate the ease and convenience of the online version as well, from time to time.
If it had any ease and convenience, I mean!!
Search Results for “whom”
Out of 91,890 "relevant results" returned in a search for the word "whom", where would one expect the actual word "whom" to place? First? Fifth? Within the first hundred pages of results, certainly?
Well, no. Such a one would expect wrong.
Past a long, long series of alphabet soup abbreviations for things like "able-bodied seaman" or Plank's constant, and a plenitude of obscure Latin terms. Past an otiose assortment of definitions for things like:
277) frost heave.
291) Graafian follicle.
321) affenpinscher.
339) batgirl.
Yep, that's right. Batgirl.
399) chylomicron.
433) corn snow.
472) dab 3.
You'll think it's going alphabetically, but then it'll start skipping around!
474) cyan.
478) Fathometer.
501) dum-dum.
533) heliolatry.
I just want to point something out here: the word I am trying to look up is "whom."
564) intestinal fortitude.
606) logic operation.
661) nombril.
That's the point on an escutcheon between the fess point and the base point. Look, I'm not saying that organizing your search function this way isn't a vocabulary-building exercise! But be that as it may, it's damned inexpedient for the searcher's purposes.
713) pooh.
No! "whom"
788) -sepalous.
Now there's a useful suffix.
859) trackless.
As in, "the trackless stretches of this search function result."
871) unperson.
Does this really need a separate entry? Seems like a simple note under "un-" would cover you. I mean, there's no entry for "undog" or "unbird" is there?
893) whippoorwill.
"Whippoorwill"! Whoo hoo, must be getting close!
894) white leather.
So close!
895) Williams, Roger.
Or perhaps not.
900) witch moth.
No, definitely not. No "whom" in sight.
908) XY recorder.
914) zero copula.
Story of my life. No, I'm kidding. It doesn't even mean that (sounds like it though, huh?).
917) zygomatic process.
The ever-popular zygomatic process! Or as I refer to it, the Bessemer Process.
918) AAF.
That will bring us back to Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti Do! With still no sign of the simple ONE WORD we have been searching for in the first place!
Is anyone else seeing a problem with this?
1053) crazy quilt.
Well, I'm glad that's in there at any rate. Shit!
I still can't find it. I'm giving it up. I'm giving up the search. Ask not for "whom".
374) B-s particle.
Indeed. An understatement.
Comments