Print

Print


On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:32:17 -0500, Dana Nutter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> [ain't Wiktionary great?]
>
>It is, but Logos seems to be more complete and more accurate though I
>like the format of Wiktionary much better.    I also have my own
>multidictionary that I've been compiling over the years.  Someday I may
>publish on the web.  That is, if I ever find the a free weekend to
>devote to it.
>

Agree!  But they sure need to add romanizations!