I agree with your method. I prefer to go to "M" to look for "Malvedos".
BTW, it's Quinta dos Malvedos, not das Malvedos.
I agree with your method. I prefer to go to "M" to look for "Malvedos".
The obvious answer is ‘both’, which is hereby vetoed. One copy of this index will add many pages, and be much work. One is enough.1815: Cockburn p24; Croft p50–1; Ferreria p126, 131; Feuerheerd p144; Noval p293; Quarles Harris p352; Royal Oporto p394; Sandeman p410; unspecified p197, 203, 224, 303, 511, 563, 596
I don’t like careless errors. Sorry.
I can only speak for myself but I can’t imagine using the index this way (especially in light of the tables you provide) whereas I would have used it the other way several times.jdaw1 wrote: ↑15:04 Sun 09 Jan 2022 Please also comment on a larger variation. If you want to learn about Cockburn, really, go to the Cockburn chapter. So it might make more sense to use the transpose, in which the major level is the vintage, and the brand is the lesser ontology.
The obvious answer is ‘both’, which is hereby vetoed. One copy of this index will add many pages, and be much work. One is enough.1815: Cockburn p24; Croft p50–1; Ferreria p126, 131; Feuerheerd p144; Noval p293; Quarles Harris p352; Royal Oporto p394; Sandeman p410; unspecified p197, 203, 224, 303, 511, 563, 596
Me too, even though most of my posts on are semi-literate. Apologies.
An index of circa 10k entries will be much work. So I won’t want to be transposing it later. Please could others comment.JacobH wrote: ↑17:46 Sun 09 Jan 2022I can only speak for myself but I can’t imagine using the index this way (especially in light of the tables you provide) whereas I would have used it the other way several times.jdaw1 wrote: ↑15:04 Sun 09 Jan 2022Please also comment on a larger variation. If you want to learn about Cockburn, really, go to the Cockburn chapter. So it might make more sense to use the transpose, in which the major level is the vintage, and the brand is the lesser ontology.The obvious answer is ‘both’, which is hereby vetoed. One copy of this index will add many pages, and be much work. One is enough.1815: Cockburn p24; Croft p50–1; Ferreria p126, 131; Feuerheerd p144; Noval p293; Quarles Harris p352; Royal Oporto p394; Sandeman p410; unspecified p197, 203, 224, 303, 511, 563, 596
Because there not all mentions of Cockburn 1927 are in the Cockburn chapter. And, non-text, pictured elsewhere are wine merchant catalogues featuring Ck27. And some Quintas have changed hands, and a reader might not know in which chapters to look.
“A proper noun is a specific (i.e., not generic) name for a particular person, place, or thing. Proper nouns are always capitalized in English, no matter where they fall in a sentence. ... Every noun can be classified as either common or proper. A common noun is the generic name for one item in a class or group”
I wonder if previously, people understood electronic publishing to mean the whole book. Whereas I think here you mean publish the index electronically?PhilW wrote: ↑18:18 Sun 09 Jan 2022 Before the technology of electronic text searching became possible, whether thanks to an original being made available in electronic form, or through a process of scanning and OCR to allow electronic searching, huge indexes or even separately published concordances would allow the identification of relevant information in venerable tomes.
Most of the examples which people have raised (such as wanting to find all mentions of a particular Quinta), along with several searches I would like to have been able to easily perform during bottle identification (such as all mentions of Berry Bros/Brothers, a rampant lion, or a specific bottler), would realistically only mostly be possible with either an index of proper nouns, or a concordance. While presumably such could be automagically generated by some word processing tool, it strikes me that the right answer here would be electronic publication, to allow electronic searching of the most excellent resource. I might have suggested this previously, unsuccessfully, however.
If an index is to be the answer, then I would suggest an index of proper nouns; if that were too onerous then an index of Brands/Shippers/Quintas/Bottlers perhaps (though the book is already indexed by brand/shipper, so perhaps just Quintas and Bottlers indexes? and a no from me on the indexing by year as primary key). But please, just publish electronically so we can search for anything we want!
No, I meant publishing the whole book electronically, as there would then be no need for additional indexing as the reader/researcher would be able to search for any item of their choice (which is highly desirable for a book intended as a definitive/useful reference of records).
Doggett wrote: ↑23:25 Sun 09 Jan 2022“A proper noun is a specific (i.e., not generic) name for a particular person, place, or thing. Proper nouns are always capitalized in English, no matter where they fall in a sentence. ... Every noun can be classified as either common or proper. A common noun is the generic name for one item in a class or group”
Slight clash.
Has this reasoning dissuaded me? At least somewhat. Shippers, maybe; but not more.
Shippers, maybe not.Alex Bridgeman wrote: ↑16:22 Mon 10 Jan 2022I can't see any other indices which I would find helpful which are not already in the book.
The “would” puzzled me, because, as late acknowledged, there is such an index.Alex Bridgeman wrote: ↑16:22 Mon 10 Jan 2022I would find an index of bottlers of interest. … can refer to the bottler index at the back of the book
And who doesn’t want to try Dow 1878? It should be a requirement of membership!winesecretary wrote: ↑19:33 Sun 13 Feb 2022 A cynic might say that what I am saying is that this would primarily be of interest to economists.
Plus those who want to try Dow 1878.
Why is ‘interesting’ insufficient?
What correction for inflation? The prices are all as of the same moment.winesecretary wrote: ↑19:33 Sun 13 Feb 2022If one could correct for inflation in the relevant periods could one derive further insights?
Some readers have basic numerical skills, some of whom might be interested in what the numbers say.winesecretary wrote: ↑19:33 Sun 13 Feb 2022A cynic might say that what I am saying is that this would primarily be of interest to economists.
If of interest to those who want to try Dow 1878, then surely of interest to everybody.
Entailing a considerable shrinkage of our membership. (Not of the members, of the membership.)
Because I find it to be of merely a passing interest. Something that makes me mumble "Huh...interesting" 10 seconds before I move on. I think it would clutter the book and have very limited informational value - at least to myself. I'd be surprised if I was in any way representative of the potential readership.