Re: Sanskrit pronounciation sources


Christopher Culver wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I gather there's no intrinsic reason why a w. entry couldn't be as
detailed as its many authors choose to make it.

Encyclopedias strive to keep things small and simple.

w. has no editors looking out for its quality, or for consistency of
content _or_ style between entries.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: this is where I came in....
    ... replaced by something that can easily be described as "blah, blah, ... I argued with the editors about it and they insisted the information ... I was assured that my entries would be added so ... that my textual contribution would make sense. ...
    (soc.motss)
  • Re: Is it dead, Jim?
    ... misconceptions that beginning editors need to unlearn.) ... so you would have to add the number of pages of supplement one to the page numbers of supplement two and so on. ... then you have to combine it via a simple sorting algorithm (considering that some entries might occur more than once, so you would have to mofify some of those entries accordingly). ...
    (rec.games.frp.gurps)
  • Re: Like, completely awol
    ... There are editors but their jobs is to ... Any word from your life belongs here, so don't reject an entry ... Reject nonsensical, circular, unspecific or all-caps entries. ... Reject entries with non-English definitions (non-English words ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Sanskrit pronounciation sources
    ... Christopher Culver wrote: ... has no editors looking out for its quality, ... Then please spare us ... your prejudiced opinions about it. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Sanskrit pronounciation sources
    ... Christopher Culver wrote: ... has no editors looking out for its quality, ... your prejudiced opinions about it. ... I have seen umpteen excerpts from it posted ...
    (sci.lang)