Q: symbols and abbreviations

[manaster at umich.edu]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
How about this? In your alphabetical definitions, you
could say, "in system 1" or "in the dominant system"
or thelike, and if you choose to say "system 1",
you'd only need a very brief intro to define 1, 2,
etc.  Aside from that, if you cannot get this into
your dictionary, please consider distributing such
info online to your friends and admirers.
 
BTW, I tried to get the OED, which is planning
a whole new edition, to include non-alphabetic
signs, but they won't do it.  They also won't
include proper etymologies, or, my favorite
suggestion, definitions of linguistic terms
that make it clear that almost of them
HAVE no standard intensional definitions
anymore.  AMR
 
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, Larry Trask wrote:
 
>
> As usual, all advice gratefully received.  But remember that I have a
> length limit, and that I'm writing a dictionary.  Following up
> Alexis's suggestion would probably require one or more appendices --
> fine by me, but there's a limit to what I can squeeze in without
> giving my editor heart failure.
>
> Larry Trask
> COGS
> University of Sussex
> Brighton BN1 9QH
> UK
>
> larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk
>