Maiku, or anyone...is there any difference in meaning between the words 'cyclopedia, and 'encyclopedia'?

cyclopedia is really an abbreviation of encyclopedia according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, which lists both ( noting, for purists, that encyclopedia is pseudo-Greek !)

quote:

---

Originally posted by FredPuli:
cyclopedia is really an abbreviation of encyclopedia according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, which lists both ( noting, for purists, that encyclopedia is pseudo-Greek !)

---

Just a footnote or two on Fred's answer, which is entirely correct. The term pseudo-Greek doesn't necessarily mean bad Greek. Technically, it means only that the word is unattested in Greek texts, though it might have been used by Socrates himself, say, in something like the same way. "Encyclopedia" comes into English from medieval Latin, having been coined on Greek models, and "cyclopedia" comes still later.

For some users, there may at times have been a small distinction: encyclopedia for a comprehensive summary of all fields of knowledge, vs. cyclopedia for a summary of knowledge in a particular branch.

Cyclopedia, even though more recent, sounds pretty antiquated to my American ears, though I can't say how it might sound to British ones.

Finally, Ritzmar, aren't you supposed to spell the words cyclopædia and encyclopædia?

Ritzmar posts from the UK too I see. Here Pear's Cyclopaedia is a famous book of reference. This is a one volume work of 1000pp or so. It appears annually nowadays, though it seems once to have published more frequently. It is rather quirky. It is now in its 111th edition. It was started by a maker of transparent soap ( those were the days !) and was intended as a cheap, comprehensive and practical work of reference over a wide range. As well as such information as the atomic weight of calcium, the population of Stockholm and a brief history of the last 70 million years,an atlas and details of Parliament it has essays on such matters as cult films, medicine and so on chosen for their interest by the editor annually.I've always suspected that the choice of the unusual title 'cyclopaedia' was to distinguish it from 'encyclopaedia' which would have suggested a work of many volumes and more depth, not 1000 pages ( which, quaintly, are not numbered). Pear's, enormous advertisers, saw it as a publicity move as well as a service though, like Guinness the brewers later with their book of records, it became just as well known as the product.The title is the only current use of the word here which I can think of.

Many thanks to both of you for answering my query so promptly and comprehensively. It is gratifying to see one more authoritative voice with which to confer in matters linguistic, Fred! Yes, Pears is the only work of reference of which I am aware which uses the word 'cyclopaedia'. Also, I would agree with you, Fred, about multiple volumes implied by the inclusive prefix, 'en'.
Also, Maiku, you make a very good case for 'encyclopaedia' covering multiple subjects vs. 'cyclopaedia' being more specialised: except for the vast area covered by Pears, and the many, one-volume self-styled books calling themselves 'encyclopaedias'.

Interestingly, I wonder whether you two have noticed an infuriating phenomenon which I have experienced several times throughout my life, and upon which I will expound with a topical example. (I have just been to one of our bookcases to check the dates on the Pears in our possession).

In 1958 my wife received from somewhere a copy of the Pears 1957-58 edition. It has now lost its hard back and a couple of pages from both ends, but is still very serviceable. In 1985 I decided to update it for her, and bought her the 1984-85 version. Within months we both were finding that the answers to the questions about which we wanted quick, precise solutions were often missing from the later copy, but could be relied upon to be found in Mark One. The whole point of one-volume works is to give un-analysed, brief, concise information about subjects likely to be thought-provoking. If I wish to study in depth then I go to the library, or research books which provide the appropriate material and purchase them.
Why updated works of reference seem to contain less of the facts which I wish to apprehend than earlier publications is baffling, to say the least. A musical colleague of mine, Tim, had an earlier edition of Groves Dictionary of Music & Musicians (a work of reference in many substantial volumes) and replaced it with the updated version three or four years ago. He constantly bemoans the fact that so often he seeks clarification on some musical topic in the new version which subsequently is found to be missing or scantily or inadequately addressed in that work. He says that he knows for a fact that it would have been included in his tragically-discarded original copy. But he felt at the time that space was valuable and that duplicate copies of this massive work was unneccessary and pointless.

My wife bought me the Oxford Companion to Music in 1968, shortly before we were married, which I have again just confirmed (the date on my book, not our current nuptual status!). It is a brilliant book, a single volume work edited by the redoubtable, long-since deceased Percy Scholes. His attitude is arrogant, at times opinionated in the extreme, hopelessly politically incorrect, and just occasionally plain wrong. But the style is lively, very informative, beautifully concise, witty, superbly written and mainly spot-on. Tim's much later copy is no fun to read, contains facts and is very careful to offend no-one. Both of us prefer my copy by far, which manages to entertain and inform simultaneously.
Does anyone else have opinions on these matters?

PS Mrs. Ritzmar's original Pears has page numbers up to at least 974 (as I mentioned, 45 years have unfortunately seen the demise of the cover and a few pages). The later edition has no actual page numbers, but the various sections are separately numbered and catalogued.
Normally, Maiku, I would include the 'a' in the word encyclopaedia; but expecting clarification from our colonial cousins (status quo!) felt that this might prove a red herring if seized upon, and the main answer which I sought might have eluded the oracle.