This dictionary is certainly not exhaustive, but I could live with that fact. What I CANNOT live with is the fact that this dictionary does not provide you with the definite artice (DE or HET) for any of the nouns listed.

Don't waste your money here. In both spoken and written dutch, you really need to know if the word "The" is going to take the form of DE or HET, and since there is no rule in dutch to tell you which form of the article goes with which noun, you must learn the article as you learn the word. And this dictionary DOES NOT tell you that information...

Of minimal usefulness. Very confusing to use because of the following: 1)no parts of speech listed, 2)single word definitions 3)few synonyms provided

Dutch-English dictionaries for English speakers are rare. Nevertheless, I'm afraid I have a dissenting opinion of this vintage 1950's dictionary not meaningfully updated since. MANY important words appropriated since the 1950's are missing, not to mention the new spelling. Most irritatingly, there is very little usage included (i.e. idioms, examples of usage, linked prepositions, etc.). Much better to rely on Hugo's or Hipolet's (sic). If Hugo's et al is too limited for you, then you're ready for a Dutch Dutch-English dictionary of which many good examples exist, e.g. Prisma which is complete with extensive usage and cheap. Whatever you do, supplement it with Donaldson's "Beyond the Dictionary in Dutch" to avoid as much public humiliation as possible when speaking with Nederlanders.

I have to admit that I did not read the entire book. I started skimming through it, and was completely shocked by several errors on the basic historical facts. Such errors in a book such as this are inexcusable, and reflect poorly on both the author and his editor.

First, the author refers to the removal of the Navajo tribe to "Bosque Redondo" "on the banks of the Rio Grande." As any historian of the Southwest knows, or certainly should know, Bosque Redondo was near Ft. Sumner, New Mexico, on the banks of the PECOS RIVER, not the Rio Grande River. Such an error is just pitiful.

Second, in one footnote (n. 11, page 314), the author states that the Confederates "gathered their forces for the battle of Val Verde, where they failed to turn back a column of Union troops from Colorado. After this defeat, the Confederates abandoned New Mexico. . . ." As ANY historian of the Civil War in the Southwest would know, the battle of Valverde, south of Socorro, New Mexico, was a Confederate victory, not a defeat. As a result of that victory, the Confederates did not turn back and return to Texas; they marched right up the Rio Grande and captured Albuquerque and then the territorial capital of Santa Fe. It was later at the battle of Glorieta, not Valverde, that the Confederates met a column of soldiers from Colorado, and met with a defeat which caused them to abandon New Mexico.

I cannot believe that a book such as this could contain such basic errors. When I saw these errors, I put aside reading any more of this book since it was obvious that one could not read it with any confidence that it was based on historical accuracy. I returned the book to the bookstore for a refund.

I at first thought it was daring for Aleshire to write this biography in the style of Sandoz's Crazy Horse. I soon found out that it was actually a big mistake.

For those not familiar with Sandoz's biography, she wrote it more in the style of a historical novel. Though it was based on extensive research, she chose to tell the story in the style in which Crazy Horse's Indian contemporaries might have told it. Also, in cases where there were different versions of events, she chose only one version, in order to keep the story flowing. I thought Aleshie daring to write in this style because, though I thought it worked well, Sandoz suffered much ridicule for it.

However, I found that this style did not lend itself very well to the subject of Cochise, for several reasons. First, the author simply did not know as much about Cochise as Sandoz did about Crazy Horse. For the sake of the story, for example, Aleshire assumes that Pisago Cabezon was Cochise's father. However, in a footnote he tells us that Cochise's father could have been one of three different people. So, when he later uses the murder of Cabezon as one of the motives for Cochise's hatred of the whites, it falls flat.

Also,like Sandoz with Crazy Horse, Aleshire tries to present Cochise as someone who meditates, and tries to "keep his mind smooth." However, if the author is correct, he also had an uncontrollable temper, and actually killed several members of his own band in anger. And despite the author's protests that warriors followed him out of respect for his achievements in battle, it sounded much more like he ruled out of fear. This would have made him highly unusual amongst Indian leaders. However, the author seems determined to gloss over this controversial topic.

THere also appears to be little of substance here. As this is the first book I've read on the Indians of the Southwest, I can't say whether it is due to lack of research, or a simple dearth of available information. I did note that the biography seemed to be based largely on secondary sources, and that there appeared to be little orignal research. There were also some really bad errors in some of the dates contained in the footnotes, though I assume this was an editing problem.

All in all, I was hoping for much more here, and I didn't get it.