Such a brilliant scholar should then have heard of an institution named The Library Of Congress, which, amongst other things, is in the business of organizing and maintaining a huge collection of graphic materials. They have to classify even such arcane things as kallitypes, megalethoscope prints, crystoleum photographs and bromoil prints.
They obviously must have some method in their classification, which I suspect is far more complete in scope than Joe Blow's one.
But this is PDML, where a word means whatever the poster wanted it to mean. And more recently they started to do that to numbers too.
cheers, caveman
Bob Walkden wrote:
> I've been there, done that. I studied linguistics at college, along with
> French, Spanish and the history of Art, after spending the previous 7 years
> studying French, German and Latin. Subsequently I worked for the British Library,
> who sponsored me to learn Russian so I could work in their Russian technical
> section. Later I qualified to teach English, although I never actually
> taught.
>
> All this leads me to believe that I know a bit about language in my
> own right. Probably rather more than most of the people who've engaged
> in this thread.
>
> I have a couple of post-grad qualifications as well, including
> one in discrete mathematics. This is essentially symbolic logic, so I
> can tell the difference between shit and shinola when it comes to
> arguments; especially arguments about words.
