RE: OED

["Michael Norman" michael.norman@xxxxxxxx]

Certainly HTOED has scholarly value, and value too perhaps as a modern
thesaurus, though if you remove the archaic words, I wonder how much
contemporary usage is left. The OED itself is really a de facto thesaurus,
at least I use it. Embedded in all the many definitions for any entry are
plenty of synonyms, which lead one to both other words and other concepts.
That's the beauty -- in part, at least -- of the OED. I'll stick with the
St. Martins thesaurus
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Robert+a+dutch&bi=0&bx=off&;
ds=30&recentlyadded=all&sortby=17&sts=t&x=0&y=0. Wish this one was digital.

Michael Norman

>-----Original Message-----
>From: xywrite-bounce@xxxxxxxx [mailto:xywrite-bounce@xxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
>Of flash
>Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:11 AM
>To: xywrite@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: OED
>
>On 17/2/12 4:36 PM, Robert Holmgren wrote:
>> As a practical matter, it seems pointless.
>
>Not if you're doing any kind of historical research, or reading a book
printed a few
>hundred years ago (such as the King James Bible).
>
>