From: horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne)
Subject: Re: jiten FAQ?
Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 06:08:15 GMT

In article <RWK.92Apr11102656@taunton.crl.dec.com>, rwk@crl.dec.com (Bob Kerns) writes:
<In article <1992Apr10.173319.5113@cs.yale.edu> horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne) writes:
<
<   Yes, but this is likely to result in a flamefest.  If anyone posts a FAQ
<   with which I disagree, I'll prepare a counter-FAQ.

I don't see why anyone should take offence.  Am I the only one who remembers
all the weeks and weeks of heated discussions of that book by--er, H-e-i-s-i-
you-know-what-the-next-letter-is :-)?  If that book makes it into any FAQ,
the flames will be rekindled automatically every time the list is posted.

But if I offended you, then you have my apologies.

<If you don't mind, I'd like to include some of your message directly
<in the FAQ.

Feel free to.

<Actually, for any dictionary that I use more than a few times, I
<really don't find learning the lookup scheme to be an inconvenience.
<If it's worse, THAT I find to be an inconvenience, but adapting to
<S&H's scheme was, on the contrary, a small improvement.

I'm glad you think so.  I certainly don't regard it as an improvement.
But tastes differ.  Anyway, we can probably agree that an extra index
(214-radical, stroke-count, whatever) would be well worth the three dozen
pages it would take up.  Certainly that "comparative" 214/S&H table is
of little use.

<I agree, introducing your own scheme isn't worth it.  Yet even Nelson
<plays a few games like this.

I don't mind (and in fact support) cross-listing characters under "incorrect"
radicals that readers might check.

<The people you should save your venom for are those who use the
<straight stroke-count scheme.  Now THERE'S something that will
<waste your time, turning pages.  Easy to learn; impossible to
<use.

Right.  The first few pages cover characters of up to four or five strokes,
and the last few those of 13+; 6-12 comprises the great bulk of such a
dictionary.

<   Second, it is cheaply produced yet expensively priced.  For $40+, I expect
<   signatures, not just glue.  (They could at least put the thing in a box.)
<
<This was a real problem, but if you read my recent post, it has
<been fixed.

Yes, I saw that (after posting my article).  Glad to hear it.  Unfortunately,
people like me can't trade in on the newer model....  :-)

<Don't ask me why Nichigai thought it was even remotely
<plausible that a book that large could be perfect-bound.

Don't ask me, either; it's a ridiculous notion, especially for a book like
a dictionary (which will be used many times rather than read straight through
and put on the shelf).  No pages have fallen out of mine yet, but....

<I eventually
<hardbound my copy;

You do your own binding?  That's something I want to learn someday.

<   Third, it is full of characters of *NO* (yes, I said "*NO*", not "limited")
<   use.
<
<I think this is a silly gripe.

I don't (else I wouldn't have said it :-)).  No matter how little space these
gimmicky characters occupy, their mere presence misleads nai"ve users (and
no, that word `nai"ve' isn't intended to insult).

<My personal priority would be for MORE definitions of jukugo.

Actually, I wouldn't mind a bit of improvement in this area, too.  (Some of
the meanings they give for individual characters are misleading, too.  Chalk
up another demerit.)

<So why don't you be helpful, and suggest what you think the best
<Xang1 Xi1 kan-ei jiten is?

The really good ones I can't afford.  :-(

					--Scott

-- 
Scott Horne                               ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
horne@cs.Yale.edu      SnailMail:  Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT   06520
203 436-1848                Residence:  Rm 1848 Silliman College, New Haven, CT
ZANG4 HAN4 YI4 JIA1 / GONG4 JIAN4 ZHONG1HUA2!