Ah, my edition of Wells is so used that it is falling apart and it is full of additions that we find useful in our daily conversations here at home. Fortunately, he included British and American terms - though not always. We really need our own edition for the local dialect (Spanglish) but I sort of figure those things out.
There should really be an American-English dic for all the newcomers from duolingo, indeed, but I figure that the younger generation will be more comfy with an on-line dic than a paperback book.

erinja:

mkj1887:It’s easier to delete than it is to add, and so it is better to present everything encountered, and then let the concerned parties choose from the list as they see fit. What’s left might be the material for a special monograph.

I'm just concerned that your list will be totally disregarded if it seems to be mostly slang terms that even the native-English-speaker author of the dictionary has never heard of. I feel that a well-curated list is more likely to be taken seriously. It takes time to sift through the list and sort the words likely to be great candidates for inclusion out from the ones that don't really have a snowball's chance (like yooper). But do what you want, it's your list.

Actually, it’s not mine anymore, since I put it into the public domain. Now, T.C. Mits has as much right to it as I do.

robbkvasnak:Ah, my edition of Wells is so used that it is falling apart and it is full of additions that we find useful in our daily conversations here at home. Fortunately, he included British and American terms - though not always. We really need our own edition for the local dialect (Spanglish) but I sort of figure those things out.
There should really be an American-English dic for all the newcomers from duolingo, indeed, but I figure that the younger generation will be more comfy with an on-line dic than a paperback book.

Benson is American. Do Brits need their own version of a one-way dictionary? I think it's not too much to ask that people crawl out of their own shell and learn that different regions call things differently. We don't need a separate dictionary for every dialect under the sun. It's really not that hard to learn British terminology for some common words. Wikipedia is a good source for alternate names of things.

erinja:

robbkvasnak:Ah, my edition of Wells is so used that it is falling apart and it is full of additions that we find useful in our daily conversations here at home. Fortunately, he included British and American terms - though not always. We really need our own edition for the local dialect (Spanglish) but I sort of figure those things out.
There should really be an American-English dic for all the newcomers from duolingo, indeed, but I figure that the younger generation will be more comfy with an on-line dic than a paperback book.

Benson is American. Do Brits need their own version of a one-way dictionary? I think it's not too much to ask that people crawl out of their own shell and learn that different regions call things differently. We don't need a separate dictionary for every dialect under the sun. It's really not that hard to learn British terminology for some common words. Wikipedia is a good source for alternate names of things.

It sounds like you’re trying to make a virtue out of a necessity. Exploring the different things called by different regions is a separate enterprise entirely, one which should be purely an elective on the part of the individual, an elective immensely facilitated by Esperanto, and the spread of Esperanto can only be facilitated by an increasing stock of reference works precisely attuned to the needs of the individual student. So, frankly, yes, we should be aiming for a separate dictionary for every dialect under the sun. Lacking that, you go with what you’ve got, of course. Zamenhof himself suggested that if you don’t have an Esperanto dictionary available in your own language, you use a French dictionary, as that is quite close to Esperanto.

mkj1887:Zamenhof himself suggested that if you don’t have an Esperanto dictionary available in your own language, you use a French dictionary, as that is quite close to Esperanto.

Do you have a source for this? This would utterly contradict the idea of Esperanto being "internacia lingvo". It is French with sugar on top.

nornen:

mkj1887:Zamenhof himself suggested that if you don’t have an Esperanto dictionary available in your own language, you use a French dictionary, as that is quite close to Esperanto.

Do you have a source for this? This would utterly contradict the idea of Esperanto being "internacia lingvo". It is French with sugar on top.

If I remember correctly, and I think I do, Zamenhof said this in the Krestomatio. And I must say there seems to be a lot of shoot-from-the-hip interpretation in this forum.

mkj1887:

nornen:

mkj1887:Zamenhof himself suggested that if you don’t have an Esperanto dictionary available in your own language, you use a French dictionary, as that is quite close to Esperanto.

Do you have a source for this? This would utterly contradict the idea of Esperanto being "internacia lingvo". It is French with sugar on top.

If I remember correctly, and I think I do, Zamenhof said this in the Krestomatio. And I must say there seems to be a lot of shoot-from-the-hip interpretation in this forum.

Can anybody confirm that this idea is taken from the Fundamenta Krestomanio? I couldn't find it in there, but I only have an abbreviated edition.

nornen:

mkj1887:

nornen:

mkj1887:Zamenhof himself suggested that if you don’t have an Esperanto dictionary available in your own language, you use a French dictionary, as that is quite close to Esperanto.

Do you have a source for this? This would utterly contradict the idea of Esperanto being "internacia lingvo". It is French with sugar on top.

If I remember correctly, and I think I do, Zamenhof said this in the Krestomatio. And I must say there seems to be a lot of shoot-from-the-hip interpretation in this forum.

Can anybody confirm that this idea is taken from the Fundamenta Krestomanio? I couldn't find it in there, but I only have an abbreviated edition.

The Krestomatio is available, in its entirety, online, as an entry in Project Gutenberg, here. I searched it, and could not find the reference that I mentioned. However, I clearly remember reading it. Perhaps it is in Unua Libro. However, I can’t find Unua Libro online, and when I went to order it from UEA, I found that although it is listed in their catalog, it is marked as being unavailable. So, is there anyone out there with a copy of Unua Libro that can check it for this reference?

Never mind. I found a link to La Dua Libro, but the realized you were looking for La Unua Libro, which I can only find on a suspicious website.

The English Wikipedia entry for Unua Libro links to an online English version of the book.