[open-linguistics] Linguistic glossaries
tfmorris at gmail.com
Mon Jun 10 15:50:58 UTC 2013
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Emily M. Bender <ebender at uw.edu> wrote:
> Whatever concerns you might have about SIL (and I understand there
> are some legitimate ones), it seems odd to me to tar any other resources
> that happen to have taken SIL resources into consideration in their
> with the same brush. If you're going to ding some other resource because
> of an SIL connection, to be credible you need to say *why* the concerns
> SIL lead to concerns about the quality of the resource.
I didn't read any of this into Christian's response -- as a matter of fact,
just the opposite. He said that those who disagreed with SIL (and he
didn't say he was one of them), sometimes *preferred* to work with SIL
derivatives instead of direct SIL products.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-linguistics