The most notable, most, draconian decision made – perhaps a first in lexicography: a point I care not to check is the complete omission of etymology. As I said in my review of the parent volume, etymology is a quagmire, and no doubt for most people, most of the time, it’s not at all to the point when they refer to a dictionary. I find, however, that when my daughters ask me the meaning of a word when we are away from dictionaries, I almost always try to make the meaning clear by relating it to cognate words (‘It’s the same word as...). This basic way of approaching the language is implicit in dictionary etymologies: it seems a pity, then, that the Concise Macquarie eschews them, however plausible the reason it offers.

Alas, none of these considerations is to the point. Nobody is going to buy this dictionary – saving blind ignorance – except for carrying to and fro: hence the introduction points out that it weighs a mere 1.3 kg against the Macquarie’s 2.5 kg. The most striking thing about the Concise Macquarie is its shape: as thick as its parent, it is an extraordinarily chubby, chunky volume; it strikes me as quite remarkably ill-suited to pack with other books in a brief-case, satchel or old-fashioned school-bag. On the other hand it might be ideally shaped for chucking into the bottom of a tote-bag: and though I have been squeamish about experimentally subjecting it to physical abuse, it certainly looks a physically durable product. Priced a dollar lower than the Concise Oxford, no doubt it will find buyers and meet most immediate needs as a school dictionary.