Velma's Reviews > The American Heritage Dictionary of Science

The American Heritage Dictionary of Science by Robert K. Barnhart
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
1843025
's review
Jan 25, 2009

really liked it
bookshelves: non-fiction, science, reference, dictionary, on-language, permanent-collection2
Recommended for: geeks, science nerds, and vocabulary aficionados
I own a copy

It's a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia, so the definitions are brief rather than comprehensive. And bear in mind that it was published in the eighties, so cutting-edge it is not.

I find that I rely on Google-fu these days to answer my questions, science or otherwise, but it is nice to have a dedicated tome to thumb through, even if for no other reason than for the pleasure of erudite bathroom reading.

But for that I'd peruse more contemporary offerings. Maybe Collins Dictionary of Science? It has the added bonus of having 666 pages - an amusing count for a book that will never be read by red-state religious tract thumpers. ;)

Reviewed at the request of my friend Teresa.
flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The American Heritage Dictionary of Science.
Sign In »

Comments (showing 1-8 of 8) (8 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Teresa (new)

Teresa I've had an American Heritage regular Dictionary since about 1976, but I didn't know they had a dictionary of Science. Do you think it's good enough for a science-oriented family (keeping in mind that my dh is a science prof and my 14 yr old reads Scientific American)? Thanks!


Velma Hmmm, I'll have to look around for it (not sure where it is right now), and peruse it with an eye to that question. I'll get back to ya soon as I can find it.


message 3: by Teresa (new)

Teresa No hurry...just curious. :) Thanks!


Velma Teresa wrote: "No hurry...just curious. :) Thanks!"


Hey T!

Cole finally built our bookshelves & yesterday I started unpacking boxes of books - huzzah! Only lived here 5 years, LOL.

Anyway, I remembered your question & looked through it with your query in mind.

It's a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia, so the definitions are brief rather than coprehensive. And bear in mind that it was published in the eighties, so cutting-edge it is not.

I find that I rely on Google-fu these days to answer my questions, science or otherwise, but it is nice to have a dedicated tome to thumb through, even if for no other reason than for the pleasure of erudite bathroom reading.

But for that I'd peruse more contemporary offerings. Maybe Collins Dictionary of Science? It has the added bonus of having 666 pages - an amusing count for a book that will never be read by red-state religious tract thumpers. ;)


message 5: by Teresa (new)

Teresa LOL!! Thanks for the update/report, Velma! I need to buy the Collins if for no other reason than what you said about the page count. ;D

How have you been?


Velma And thanks for getting that by 'coprehensive' I wasn't referring to anything scatalogical but meant 'comprehensive'. ;)

Good; you?


message 7: by Teresa (new)

Teresa You're so brilliant, even your spelling mistakes are intellectual!

I'm good too...crazy busy for the past month and a half, but hopefully will have some breathing time from this week on. :)


Velma Yay!


back to top