Vous l'avez déjà ? Vendez votre exemplaire ici
Désolé, cet article n'est pas disponible en
Image non disponible pour la
couleur :
Image non disponible

Dites-le à l'éditeur :
J'aimerais lire ce livre sur Kindle !

Vous n'avez pas encore de Kindle ? Achetez-le ici ou téléchargez une application de lecture gratuite.



Voir les offres de ces vendeurs.


Prix Amazon Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Relié EUR 17,30  
Relié EUR 16,84  
Relié, 24 mars 1994 --  
Il y a une édition plus récente de cet article:
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus
EUR 17,30
En stock.

Offres spéciales et liens associés

Détails sur le produit

En savoir plus sur l'auteur

Découvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.

Vendre une version numérique de ce livre dans la boutique Kindle.

Si vous êtes un éditeur ou un auteur et que vous disposez des droits numériques sur un livre, vous pouvez vendre la version numérique du livre dans notre boutique Kindle. En savoir plus

Commentaires en ligne 

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur Amazon.fr
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoiles
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 4.1 étoiles sur 5  50 commentaires
101 internautes sur 106 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 The best single tool to improve your writing 7 juillet 2001
Par Brian - Publié sur Amazon.com
Most other dictionary-format thesauri (Roget's II, for instance) simply won't give you what you want on the first try. If, for instance, you want a more decorous word for "smelly", you're brusquely told to "see MALODOROUS". This means that most of the words you are likely to be looking up require a time-wasting two step process: first find the word you want to replace, then find the main entry for that concept. By the time you've finished flipping back and forth through the pages you've forgotten what it is your looking for.

The Webster's version is a thousand times more convenient. If you look up a specific word, you're guaranteed to find about a dozen or so of the most common synonyms right there (funky, stinky, rank, etc.). This first entry is probably all you'll need, and it constitutes the main time-saving benefit of this edition. But there's more. The real verbomaniacs among us get referred to the main entry of the concept. Here you'll find the mother lode of words, often numbering into the dozens and ranging from the most commonplace to the ridiculously obscure (e.g. mephitic, olid, stenchful). You'll also find related terms (vile, rotten, pestilential), contrasting terms (fresh, clean, deoderized), and antonyms (fragrent, sweet) all in the same place, just as you would in Roget's conceptually arranged International edition. Like I said, most writers are sure to find what they need on the first try.

The only other thesaurus that approaches this one is the Random House Collegiate, but I don't think that one has definitions; this one does. I'm also pretty sure this one has more words than Random House, Roget's 21st Century, or any other. It's also inexpensive for a hardcover, so how can you lose?
80 internautes sur 87 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
3.0 étoiles sur 5 Merriam-Webster disappoints for once 28 mars 2002
Par Ingalls - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié|Achat vérifié
This will do if you only use a thesaurus occasionally but it won't do for the rest of us. The usually superlative Merriam-Webster product line missed the beat with this one. Although Roget's is a bit more time consuming to use, it is infinitely more rewarding than this volume. I was very disappointed at the small number of synonyms found for each entry in Merriam. In Roget, you can easily find many words that differ by only the slightest and most subtle shade of meaning. In this book, if it isn't an exact match, you won't know about it. I also saw no point to including antonyms in a thesaurus. I would have preferred many more synonyms included in the space used for antonyms.
30 internautes sur 31 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
3.0 étoiles sur 5 disappointed 14 septembre 2005
Par Major Tom - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié|Achat vérifié
Having used and liked my friend's Roget's 4th Edition Thesaurus, I wanted one of my own. But apparently, Roget's changed the format after the 4th Edition. Rather than get the latest Roget's (6th Edition?), which several buyers didn't like, I went for the Merriam-Webster. For one, it boasted over 60,000 more entries than Roget's. And, it was supposidely easier to use. Well, I've barely used it and I'm really disappointed. Several words I consider fairly common weren't even there! For example, look up "anomaly" in Roget's and you get 5 catagories, each with numerous word-choices. In Merriam-Webster "anomaly" isn't even there!! Neither is "vested". I'm sure there are dozens more. I wish I could return it, but it is 2-weeks past the 30-day limit.
7 internautes sur 7 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
4.0 étoiles sur 5 Doesn't Quite Have the Subtle Flavors of Words 27 février 2010
Par Craig A. Meyer - Publié sur Amazon.com
I like using a thesaurus to find just the right word, so that means having lots of options. The new, revised edition simply fails to live up to expectations. I was told by one of the reps for Merriam-Webster late last year (2009) that the new Collegiate Thesaurus would knock my socks off. It doesn't; my socks are still on as are my shoes.
It's not that bad, however, I do like the usage phrases set up in angle brackets. I think this helps clear up any meaning concerns if one is unsure of meaning. But I do not like having, what amounts to, a definition for each entry. I really ONLY want other single words or phrases related to the "original word"--and lots of them!
Yes, it looks pretty and bright and is easy to find and to use, but it feels more like a word processor thesaurus (that is, limited options) than the one I still pick up every time I write (which has lots of synonyms). The limited amount of related words and dictionary-like entries simply don't cut the mustard (which you won't find if you spill some on the dust jacket).
Good, but not good enough for writers that want to get the nuances of their prose precise and just right.
It might be geared for less experienced writers or those not as familiar with English, but I'm not suggesting it's basic, just not comprehensive.

UPDATE: I spoke with two Merriam-Webster representatives who, politely, educated me on how to USE the darn thing. Needless to say, I have increased my 3 stars to four stars. Now my main gripe is that one has to get use to using this type of thesaurus, which will take some time. But I readily admit, I dismissed it too quickly, so don't make the same mistake.

UPDATE II: I got rid of it. :)
3 internautes sur 3 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 Disappointed 27 juillet 2011
Par Burwell - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié|Achat vérifié
Being new to using a thesaurus, I bought this book in part because of its overall rating. The book was of no help with many of the words I looked up. Instead, I found Roget's Thesaurus to be much more useful and a wonderful tool.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ?   Dites-le-nous

Discussions entre clients

Le forum concernant ce produit
Discussion Réponses Message le plus récent
Pas de discussions pour l'instant

Posez des questions, partagez votre opinion, gagnez en compréhension
Démarrer une nouvelle discussion
Première publication:
Aller s'identifier

Rechercher parmi les discussions des clients
Rechercher dans toutes les discussions Amazon

Rechercher des articles similaires par rubrique


Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?