Christian K. Wedemeyer
wedemeyer at UCHICAGO.EDU
Tue Jun 12 15:12:16 UTC 2007
Thanks for the information. That would seem to be a cogent reason if in fact the plan is borne out
(just the other day, I was looking for a word that was just beyond the most recent fascicles and
wishing things had gotten farther along, so I can't help but be sympathetic to the motivation). If,
in fact, the digital format streamlines work and allows it to proceed at a faster pace, that is all to
I no doubt should have hesitated before leaping to my own interpretation of the cause of the
change (and simultaneously broadcasting my rather strong distaste for the Danish authorities--
my apologies if, in overstating my case, I offended anyone!).
Still, luddite though it may sound, paper has shown itself to be the single-most successful
technology in transmitting human knowledge. The CPD is an important monument of scholarship
which should be preserved in a durable form. For right or wrong, I am not sanguine about the
long-term success of digital technology (measured, that is, in centuries, not decades) and would
be happier if the CPD could be published "old style" at some point. Perhaps money could be found
to publish one or two big installments, as digital work progresses?
Thanks again for clarifying things,
P.S. Any idea what happened to cause the "destruction" of fascicle 3.7?
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:43:10 +1000, Mark Allon <mark.allon at ARTS.USYD.EDU.AU> wrote:
>In his original posting on the Palistudy list, Ole Pind commented that
>it would take 300 to 400 years to complete the CPD "like in the old
>days." This could be greatly reduced through concentrating recourses on
>the digital format.
More information about the INDOLOGY