A Sanskrit English Dictionary 2005 Deluxe Edition: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages,

As another reviewer put it, this is quite simply the only definitive Sanskrit-English dictionary. The monumental feat of scholarship required to compile this resource is staggering to imagine. It has completely answered every query for which I have consulted it and deserves 5 stars for this fact alone.

Nonetheless, it delivers in several other ways. The organization, which admittedly takes some getting used to due to such counterintuitives as the dual alphabetical ordering of the anusvara, turns out to be an extremely effective way of improving vocabulary because it groups several derivatives and compounds under their basic roots. Connections to other Indo-European cognates has the side effect of creating a work that is a valuable linguistic reference outside of ancient Indian studies.

It is extremely comprehensive in certain entries, perhaps indeed encyclopaedaic as another reviewer mentioned, but this has its benefits. Sometimes readers need more background information on deceptively complex terms than provided in a particular piece of literature where the word is found, because the author assumes that his readers already possess this knowledge.

As to the end product of the mammoth undertaking that this must have been for Monier-Williams, I have no complaints. This is what I expect of any "final authority" reference.

Useful as a quick reference because the entries are primarily in Roman script with diacritics, rather than Devanagari. Some of the entries, specifically those connected with scientific views, are outdated as they are subject to the scientific understanding of the time.

What bothers me more, however, is the motivation of Monier-Williams for creating the dictionary and the possible influence that may have had on its accuracy. Often referred to as "a lover of India," Monier-Williams himself shows a different side of his interest in India. In 'Modern India and Indians', p. 247. he writes: "When the walls of the mighty fortress of Brahmanism are encircled, undermined and finally stormed by the soldiers of cross, the victory of Christianity must be signal and complete." And in the preface of this very dictionary he writes: "I must draw attention to the fact that I am only the second occupant of the Boden Chair, and that its founder, Col. Boden, stated most explicitly in his will (dated Aug. 15,1811) that special object of his munificent bequest was to promote the translation of the scriptures into Sanskrit; so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian Religion."

I find it hard to believe that this kind of attitude lays a proper foundation for an objective approach to the creation of a dictionary, and want to caution the reader to bear this in mind when using it.

The Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary is one of the heaviest books I own. If you are working in any field related to Indolology or Indian linguistics, you need it - it is the best by far. In every entry you feel that Monier-Williams spoke Sanskrit and loved India - a wonderful book, you can spend hours just browsing in it. The Monier-William and Platt's Urdu, Classical Hindi and English Dictionary represent the apex of British Indological Scholarship. A digital edition would be extremely useful...

I remember having this book a few years ago, but I did not keep it for a long time.

Besides the poor print quality and the fact that the entries are not in the alphabetical order, so that a beginner in Sanskrit has hard time finding their words, I did not like it for two other reasons:

1. There are so many abbreviations that most of the time it was very difficult to tell them apart from the actual translation, especially in the case of some short words or words with multiple meanings. You get something like: abbr., abbr., abbr., abbr., word, abbr., abbr., abbr., word, abbr., abbr., abbr., abbr., word, abbr., abbr., abbr., and try to find a word inside.

2. There is too much information not really belonging to a dictionary. For example in the entry about Krishna there is a whole story recounted about Krishna, his childhood, his life and exploits. This is not what I expect from a dictionary. In the one I use now (Woerterbuch Sanskrit-Deutsch, Langenscheidt) one can find that Krishna is: I adj., black, II Name of a hero, later of a god identified with Vishnu, (and a few more meanings amounting to only 8 lines of explanations). This is all I expect from a dictionary.

So, if you do not mind spending half an hour (or more), looking up one word, this dictionary is OK. I minded and this book found a place in the local library. It was simply unmanageable.

1. The majority of words in this dictionary are provided in transliteration and a minority are additionally in devanagari script. This is a drawback as it requires learning of the transliteration conventions, it makes spotting words more difficult, and is a distraction all round.