[Mihalic] RE: Introducing....
JohnEllissenBurton at hotmail.om
Tue Dec 23 10:56:42 EST 2003
Thanks, what you propose is clearer. (First, the symptoms you describe
fit the behaviour of a spoofing cookie you may have on your computer.
However, all your emails do come straight here.)
>1. Yes, I certainly did check the Mihalic website.
>Is there something that I have missed?
I was hoping you would make some comment on the group approach we have
adopted. For example, by having a look at the thread discussions.
>2. Copyright: Oxford University Press is not in the
>business of contravening copyright.
>When you talk about 'danger' what do you mean?
The danger I mentioned is inherent in our group's open mode of revising
the Mihalic headwords and in sharing candidate 'new' entries on the
public internet. That is, that before we can publish on paper someone
will come along and say 'thanks very much' and publish without the
attribution we are being as careful as we can to make.
I write to protect contributors to this project. Fr Mihalic collaborated
with Prof Peter Mühlhäusler and his wife in the late 1970s. The
Mühlhäuslers spent a considerable time in marking up a manuscript
revision of the 1971 edition but Jacaranda in the end declined to take
on publication. It took a bit of persuading to assure the Mühlhäuslers
that we would respect and acknowledge their considerable amount of work.
Others have provided concordance-type material on the same basis, and
vocation-specific, botanical and other lists.
>3. Oxford Australia has published two so-called Study Dictionaries:
>one an Italian Study Dictionary, the other an
>Indonesian Study Dictionary. If you give me your
>mailing address, I'll have copies sent to you.
>These two dictionaries are in turn modelled on similar
>dictionaries published out of Oxford. There is one in
>French, one in German and one in Spanish. And
>Oxford UK bought copies of the Australian-published Italian dictionary.
That's fine, we'll take a look.
>Be that as it may, I have long felt that the model
>would be excellent for a Tok Pisin Study Dictionary:
>the first half Tok P to English, the second half Engl to
>Tol P, and in the centre (as in the other ditionaries)
>a secton on grammar and usage. I think there is a
>real need for such a dictionary in PNG, especially now
>with the Education Reform whereby students are taught
>to be literate first in their own tok ples before then
>'bridging to English'. Such a Study Dictionary would
>be small, compact, and relatively inexpensive.
We are aware of this need.
>The Mihalic Dictionary, on the other hand is much
>larger and much more comprehensive, pitched above
>the popular/school market that the Study Dictionary
>is aimed at. But Oxford, I'm sure, would be interested
>in the possibility of re-publishing an updated and
>revised Mihalic for scholarly reasons.
Yes, we are in agreement.
>Forgive me if I'm telling what you already know,
>but it's important I spell out the differences
>between the Press and other publishing companies:
>Oxford University Press is a wholly owned department
>of the University of Oxford. It does not have private
>sharehoders. Profits generated by the Press are channelled
>in three ways: first, a dividend is paid to the University;
>second, profit is reinvested in the business (to lessen
>dependency on banks); and a third share goes to the
>publication of scholarly works that are unlikely to
>be taken up by purely commercial houses.
>This is where I am coming from. Does it raise concern
>on your part? If so, please spell out your concerns to
>me so that I understand exactly what they are and can
>see clearly where you are coming from.
No, I think we are in agreement over this. I will let the list members
make a response now.
More information about the Mihalic