Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hyper.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hyper!brust
From: brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Canonical ?
Message-ID: <222@hyper.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 11:19:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: hyper.222
Posted: Wed Jul  3 11:19:57 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 02:04:01 EDT
References: <2399@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 25

> From: jdecarlo@mitre.ARPA
> 
> 
> Jay Johannes writes:
> >Hold on just a second, here. I have been reading over the list and
> >am wondering if everybody knows what "canonical" means? Webster
> >gives definitions of orthodox and simplest form. 
> 
> My response is "hold on just a second yourself!"  First of all, let
> me cite my Random House dictionary definition of canonical:

I'm sorry, I just can't hold back any longer.

** FLAME WARNING **

Trying to determine what a word means by looking it up in
a Websters is almost as useful as trying to determine a
a politician's honesty by looking at the Gallop Poll.

** FLAME OFF **

Random House is better.  American Heritage is good.  The
Oxford English Dictionary is definitive.

			-- SKZB