Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050402040415.03b58530@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 06:20:09 +0200
To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] is there some wiskey in the jar - [was: Registry in
	record-jar format]
In-Reply-To: <20050402014946.GA16332@skunk.reutershealth.com>
References: <4A7C6FA2AB31194E80E13FE585F6A21292A1CE@EVS-EC1-NODE1.surrey.ac.uk>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050331201305.042e0c60@mail.jefsey.com>
	<20050331201010.GA6550@skunk.reutershealth.com>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050401103458.042e0140@mail.jefsey.com>
	<20050402014946.GA16332@skunk.reutershealth.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 03:49 02/04/2005, John Cowan wrote:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin scripsit:
>
> > >Many dictionaries do not have this last item, particularly dictionaries of
> > >and in English, where the boundaries are extremely permeable.
> >
> > 1. Unfortunately.
>
>We like it that way.

This is exactly what I say. Personal gustos have nothing to do in an 
international standard.

> > However I suppose you will make a difference between
> > Basic American and English. But you have to consider the purpose: you
> > cannot consider a lingua franca as a reference.
>
>Eh?  American English is somewhat more standardized in written form than
>British English is.

??? Your whole point is that "in English boundaries are extremely 
permeable". You seem to contradict.

> > 2. I am sure that all the people who work on ontologies round the world
> > desserve better a comment by their standardisers.
>
>The genius of the English language is its immense flexibility.

I suppose you lost the thread here. Your comment wiped off all the ontologies.

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru