Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.gobment.lones
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!dasher
From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood)
Subject: Re: Vocabulary size in various languages
Message-ID: <dasherDK1B71.JyJ@netcom.com>
Organization: That would be telling.
References: <4aco9a$379@milo.freenet.vancouver.bc.ca> <4ar3s0$hau@calweb.calweb.com> <4b425g$j0v@ss1.cam.nist.gov> <4b4rj4$4n8@netsrv2.spss.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 10:16:12 GMT
Lines: 14
Sender: dasher@netcom16.netcom.com

: John E Koontz <koontz@cam.nist.gov> wrote:
: >	. . . .  One
: >extralinguistic factor is that English scholars have graced English
: >with some really good, really big, very inclusive dictionaries.

Mark Rosenfelder <markrose@spss.com> says:
: A very interesting point.  I've never seen (say) the Dictionnaire de l'
: Academie Francaise-- how does it compare, on a scholarly level, with the OED?

I'd expect the Academie to be more selective in what they allow into
the dictionary.
-- 
Anton Sherwood   *\\*   +1 415 267 0685   *\\*   DASher@netcom.com
I wasn't always anarcho-capitalist, you know.	--   Ubi scriptum?
