<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 7 Mar 2013, at 05:41, Adam Kilgarriff <<a href="mailto:adam@lexmasterclass.com">adam@lexmasterclass.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Otto and others,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow'; font-size: 13px; "><font face="Arial">so I wonder </font></span><span style="font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial; ">how the choice of including / excluding words is made</span><br></blockquote><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; font-family: 'Arial Narrow'; font-size: 13px; "><span style="font-family:Arial"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; font-family: 'Arial Narrow'; font-size: 13px; ">
<span style="font-family:Arial">if you are serious about it, come to the lexicom workshop where it is addressed thoroughly, by Michael Rundell, who has made thousands of these decisions, as chief editor for first Longman, now Macmillan dictionaries.</span></div></blockquote><div><br></div>If that workshop is based on Rundell's and Atkins' book "the Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicogaphy" then I'm not convinced that it will address Otto's and others' question which is deeply rooted in philosophy (and in the specific case of the word(s) occasioning this thread <i>theology</i>) rather than technology. It may address the "why" of inclusion of terms from a carefully collated evidential corpus but not the fundamental issues.</div><br><div>
Regards, Trevor.<div><br></div><div><>< Re: deemed!</div>
</div>
<br></body></html>