Customer Reviews


11 Reviews
5 star:    (0)
4 star:
 (4)
3 star:
 (3)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:
 (4)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent little dictionary
I use this dictionary every day, and I absolutely love it. I have used other 'pocket' sized dictionaries and I have always found their lack of vocabulary frustrating. The Pocket Oxford dictionary seems to be only lacking in obscure Russian internet slang, which isn't really surprising or much of a problem.

The only downsides are:

1: The English to...
Published on 27 Jun. 2006 by Translatorerer

versus
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Rubbish binding - falls to pieces in no time.
What a shame a good dictionary is ruined by lack of robustness. Lightly glued pages might suffice in a throw-away novel for holiday reading, but a hefty dictionary is going to be opened again and again. There's a rumour that the latest printing uses *sewn* pages, but a loose-leaf bundle of dictionary pages is what I have to use. There's nothing in the description to...
Published on 17 Feb. 2011 by C. Skillen


‹ Previous | 1 2 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent little dictionary, 27 Jun. 2006
This review is from: Pocket Oxford Russian Dictionary (Paperback)
I use this dictionary every day, and I absolutely love it. I have used other 'pocket' sized dictionaries and I have always found their lack of vocabulary frustrating. The Pocket Oxford dictionary seems to be only lacking in obscure Russian internet slang, which isn't really surprising or much of a problem.

The only downsides are:

1: The English to Russian half doesn't have the declensions of words - you have to look them up again in the Russian to English half.

2: It is terribly badly bound. A millimetre of glue is all that holds the pages in, and it isn't enough. My first copy fell to pieces after about three months. I am not heavy handed - I have other dictionaries that have lasted 15 years or more with the same use. I find the dictionary so useful that I just bought another one to replace it.

Unless you want a dictionary you can pass on to your grandchildren (or even your children), I would definitely recommend this.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Rubbish binding - falls to pieces in no time., 17 Feb. 2011
By 
C. Skillen - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Pocket Oxford Russian Dictionary (Paperback)
What a shame a good dictionary is ruined by lack of robustness. Lightly glued pages might suffice in a throw-away novel for holiday reading, but a hefty dictionary is going to be opened again and again. There's a rumour that the latest printing uses *sewn* pages, but a loose-leaf bundle of dictionary pages is what I have to use. There's nothing in the description to confirm that the binding problem has been fixed. Any news on this, anyone?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Get the original 1981 edition, 14 Aug. 2009
By 
Dr. Richard M. Price (London, UK) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Pocket Oxford Russian Dictionary (Paperback)
There have been two very different products with this title - the 1981 edition, which is genuinely pocket size (13 by 10 by 3 cm) and the 1994 and 2006 editions, which aren't (19 by 13 by 5 cm). My three stars are for the later editions; I would award five to the 1981 edition, which is really worth having, since it is easy to carry around and yet (with its 800 pages) contains most of the words you'll meet; it's also so well bound as to last for ever. (If all you want is Russian-English, you could hunt out the separate, hardback publication of this part of the dictionary in the 1970s.) But the later editions seem an unsatisfactory halfway house - neither pocket size, nor as full as one would wish with a dictionary to keep on one's desk, for which one must turn to the large Oxford Russian Dictionary (although it too is far from complete). The 1981 edition (or its reprints into the early 1990s, with minor revisions every few years) is out of print, of course, but Amazon will enable you to find a secondhand copy, at a bargain price.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars What every learner should have..., 9 May 2007
By 
S. Dawson (London, UK) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Pocket Oxford Russian Dictionary (Paperback)
If you want to learn Russian one of the first things you should buy is a dictionary. This is the one I bought. This does everything it says on the tin - it's a Russian/English dictionary. It might not fit in your pocket, but I have never met a 'Pocket' edition that did. This is a great resource for anyone learning, it's easy to carry about and is something that you can have on hand. Recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars A good resource, particularly for learners, 14 Nov. 2010
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
Firstly, no, it won't fit in your pocket unless you are a kangaroo, but what dictionary with a reasonable typeface and a decent number of definitions could? The definitions are listed clearly and for the most part, contain short, sharp, concise definitions. Both the Russian/English, English/Russian sides are equally competent, and particularly for the price of a second hand copy, this dictionary is an excellent purchase. My only issues are the lack of a grammar section and a guide to the Cyrillic alphabet for beginners, that other dictionaries provide (at a cost). I'd buy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Dont buy, 19 Dec. 2008
By 
H. C. Upton "Harvu" (UK) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Pocket Oxford Russian Dictionary (Paperback)
Dont buy this pocket dictionary - there are far too many simple and very basic words that are missing, and if you are learning Russian it will hold you back. And its not pocket sized, or cheap. Dont be fooled by the authoritative "Oxford" label - buy the Collins dictionary its much better.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars The last straw, 14 Jan. 2009
By 
This review is from: Pocket Oxford Russian Dictionary (Paperback)
I have finally lost patience with this dictionary. I'm fed up with the fact that there are so many Russian words which have no English translation. It's not that you are referred elsewhere for the English word - rather the english word is simply not provided! It's as though the authors provided the Russian entry but forgot to provide the corresponding English word. This has happened time and time again.

Admittedly I have the 2000 version. Perhaps the new 2006 version has ironed out these frustrating omissions. However, after my experience with the 2000 version my trust has been lost and I athough I will be buying a new dictionary I won't be buying that one.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars pocket Russian dictionary, 25 July 2013
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Pocket Oxford Russian Dictionary (Paperback)
As I am trying to teach myself Russian, this will be a very useful reference book and an aid to my efforts.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


16 of 30 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Emphatic thumbs-down, 9 Feb. 2006
By 
C. R. Howlett - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Pocket Oxford Russian Dictionary (Paperback)
For a work which incorporates the word 'pocket' in its title, this latest (third) edition of PORD (PORD 3) is positively E-N-O-R-M-O-U-S. Approaching the bulk of a standard British house brick, it does not go even close to fitting in any normal pocket. Nor is it a lightweight, weighing in at a thumping 840g. In sharp contrast, its nearest competitor as a self-styled 'pocket dictionary' the diminutive Langenscheidt Pocket Russian Dictionary - tips the scales at a mere 310g. Although marred by a host of editorial shortcomings, this last work at least conforms physically with its description: it says it's a pocket dictionary and, true to its word, it fits in a pocket.

Moving to PORD 3's presentation, the type used for the translations, especially in the English-Russian section, is too small and dense for comfortable reading. Oxford University Press's designers appear to be unaware that Cyrillic type, especially when tightly letterspaced, is harder to read at small point sizes than Roman, chiefly because it has far few ascenders and descenders.

Let's now turn to the editorial side of things, starting with the explanatory materials sandwiched between the editorial credits and the dictionary proper.

The first thing I noticed was the lack of any clear indication of what level of user this brick-like 'pocket' dictionary is aimed at. A curious marketing oversight.

Secondly, the explanatory materials are way too extensive, running to around 40 pages in all. A guide to the use of the dictionary and a list of abbreviations used are clearly essential, but detailed sections on English and Russian pronunciation would have been better relegated to appendices.

Within no more than a minute or two of opening PORD 3 I was alerted to the possibility that it might not live up to the claims of editorial excellence made for it: a crass proof-reading error was spotted just three pages into the 'Guide to the use of the Dictionary'. The phrase "… unless they have special semantic of syntactical features" should have read "… semantic OR syntactical features". Further evidence of a general lack of editorial rigour was soon to follow: in the section 'Abbreviations used in the Dictionary' the full form of var. is given as 'variant', rather than 'various'.
Despite the fact that at the time of writing the work has been reprinted twice, the publisher of "the world's most trusted dictionaries" has not seen fit to correct either of these errors.

Studying the list of abbreviations revealed other oddities. Why are the abbreviations arch. and obs. (which stand for archaic and obsolete respectively) required? Is archaic and obsolete vocabulary really deserving of inclusion in a pocket dictionary? The list also includes vulg. and offens. (= vulgar and offensive respectively).
Does vocabulary meriting these labels really belong in a work of such limited scope? Not just prudes and cranks will wonder on what basis the editors of this pocket dictionary - repeat, pocket dictionary - saw fit to devote no fewer than 18 lines to the f-word. Many Russian users in particular, along with those thinking of buying a dictionary for younger students, will question such a policy, wondering why the space - always precious in a smaller work - was not given over instead to more mainstream vocabulary.

The absence, on the one hand, of everyday terms such as 'Londoner' and 'trading' and, on the other, the presence of flavour-of-the-month neologisms like 'bling', 'chav' and 'phishing' and exotica such as 'yucca' are reflections of just how haphazardly the dictionary's English and Russian wordlists were arrived at. Consulting frequency counts and corpora in both languages confirms the editors' scant regard for scientific method. A check of the contents of the authoritative 'Oxford 3000' and 'Collins 3000' lists of English 'keywords', for example, revealed that approximately 150 are lacking in PORD 3. A check of the Russian words in Nicholas Brown's respected 'Russian Learners' Dictionary: 10,000 words in frequency order' (reviewed elsewhere on this site) revealed that around 300 are lacking in PORD 3. These statistics are quite damning.

Close examination of the dictionary text also reveals that there has been little or no editorial collaboration between those editing the two halves. As a result inconsistencies and oddities abound. Time and again, for example, translations in one half are found to be lacking as entries in the other.

A number of other editorial deficiencies were noted, including the use of 'nesting' in the English-Russian section, obliging the user to search for entries such as 'cockroach' and 'cocktail' not in their proper alphabetical place, but under 'cock'; the inclusion of 'buzzy' new abbreviations, such as DSL and DTD, but omission of much more common ones, such as BBC and NGO; the provision of a guide to letter- writing which contains vocabulary lacking in the dictionary proper and of a cultural realia guide which lists 'The Big Issue' but omits
'Big Ben'.

To increase its marketability PORD 3 has been provided with a user interface designed to cater for the needs of not just one, but both speech communities. Its implementation is poor, however - markedly poorer than that of, for example, the competing Collins Russian Dictionary. PORD 3's interface remains unduly Anglocentric. Throughout the Russian-English section, for example, part-of-speech indicators and usage-related abbreviations are still in English, rather than Russian.

The Preface promises the "clear labelling of US and British terms and spellings", but the editors frequently fail to deliver. The only translation offered for the Russian word 'trotuar', for example, is the unlabelled Briticism 'pavement', with no mention of 'sidewalk'; similarly, the English alphabet listed at the back (p. 920) does not give the US pronunciation of the letter 'z'. Scores more oversights of this kind were noted.

PORD 3 is also relentlessly 'Britocentric' in the matter of pronunciation, offering no guidance whatever on American and British pronunciation differences. Let those who doubt how great they can be look up words like 'clerk', 'derby', 'fertile' and 'vase' in a dictionary that does not duck this challenge.

All in all, I give PORD 3 an emphatic thumbs-down.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 3 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars LARGER THAN EXPECTED, 7 Dec. 2007
By 
M. Rakhmatov - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Pocket Oxford Russian Dictionary (Paperback)
When i was buying this item i thought it would be compact, small handy dictionary- "POCKET". However after i recieved it , i realised that its size didnt fit the description on the front page"pocket dictionary" because it wouldnt fit your pocket and would take up a lot o room in your handbag! However it's content is good as usual oxford dictionaries.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Pocket Oxford Russian Dictionary
Pocket Oxford Russian Dictionary by Della Thompson (Paperback - 26 Jan. 2006)
Used & New from: £0.01
Add to wishlist See buying options
Only search this product's reviews