[Mihalic] RE: Introducing....

[Ray O'Farrell]

Dear John,

Thank you for responding clearly to my email - and I must hasten to add that 
I responded to your email to the list members before I opened this email of 
yours. (I am in the habit of 'working backwards' through my email, so I 
opened your 'list members email' and replied to it before I opened your 
email below.)

But now to respond to your comments:

1. >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.

No, sorry, I haven't looked at the thread discussions. Yesterday (Monday) I 
moved house (with spouse and two kids). Sunday, Saturday and Friday, I 
packed boxes and cleaned the old place - and actually on Sunday I spent time 
cleaning the new place (as well as shifting the 'breakables'). I've had to 
clear email in the dead of night. I live in Adlelaide; tomorrow I drive to 
Gippsland; Saturday I drive back, so from Sunday on I'll make time to have a 
look at the thread discussions.

2. (a) 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.

Ah, now I get you. If you feel uncomfortable about me being on your list, 
please take me off - I shall not be offended. But let me reiterate, that if 
Oxford were to get involved with your group, full and complete attribution 
would be meticulously attended to.

2. (b) >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.

If the Mühlhäuslers work were to make up parts of an Oxford re-publication 
of Mihalic, then of course full respect and acknowledgement would be made. 
(Or do they want their original 1971 work published now in full? Presume it 
couldn't be, but many entries would find a place in the publication of a new 
authoritative Dictionary?)

Jacaranda were briefly and, for a short period, intensely active in 
publishing for PNG when Ulli Beier was active in Moresby circles. But 
Jacaranda has not been active in PNG since the early seventies.

2. (c) Others have provided concordance-type material on the same basis, and
>vocation-specific, botanical and other lists
What I have said above applies here too. But may I respectfully suggest that 
you have two options:
keep going as you are (in your own words 'plodding'); or sit down with 
Oxford and talk through how we can best work together to produce the 
dictionary that is needed, one we can all be proud of and feel part of.


3. (a)  >That's fine, we'll take a look.
Okay - to what address do I send the Oxford Study Dictionaries?

3. (b) >We are aware of this need.
I already have people compiling entries for several letters, I do not intend 
to plod - I want the ms finished in Nov 2004, for publication July 2005. In 
the Oxford Indonesian Study Dictionary I'm sure I have an approporate model. 
I need others to help compile entries so I can be sure of meeting the Nov 04 
deadline. I also need reviewers to read and assess the final ms and page 
proofs If you and/or any any of your group are interested in compiling or 
reviewing, let me know.

3. (c) >Yes, we are in agreement.
Good. We should meet and talk. The Mihalic dictionary will need to be 
assessed in terms of specifications: ie, page size, page extent, timetable, 
print run, retail price...


4. >No, I think we are in agreement over this. I will let the list members
>make a response now.

Good. All the more reason to keep talking.

Very best wishes for Christmas, John. Talk to you when I get back from 
Gippsland.

Ray





>From: "John Burton" <JohnEllissenBurton at hotmail.om>
>To: "'Ray O'Farrell'" 
><rayofarrell at hotmail.com>,<ndegroot at online.net.pg>,<Irene.Sawczak at oup.com>
>CC: <Mihalic at anu.edu.au>
>Subject: RE: Introducing....
>Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:56:42 +1000
>
>Ray
>
>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.
>
> >Kind regards
>
> >Ray
>
>No, I think we are in agreement over this. I will let the list members
>make a response now.
>
>Regards
>John Burton
>

_________________________________________________________________
E-mail just got a whole lot better. New ninemsn Premium. Click here  
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp