- B.S. in math/computer science
- Some graduate work in English literature
- Have lived in
- US: Kansas, Michigan, South Dakota, LA, Silicon Valley and North Carolina
- Europe: Holland and London with extended visits to Lombardy and Geneva
- Native speaker of American English, enough to get into trouble in
- Maybe a phrase or two of
Oh yes. I take my tea white, no sugar. Coffee likewise, preferring latte to cappucino.
- Linguistics, philology, lexicography
- Cognitive science
- Mathematics, theoretical and practical computing
- Music theory and practice
- Group work activities, including Wiki
- Evolution, market economics and other emergent phenomena (including Wiki)
A while ago I said
- I'm currently jumping into whatever fray looks interesting at the moment. I tend to put most of my effort into:
- Tracking down actual usage, particularly in response to assertions about what's "correct" or "must be" the case as opposed to what's actually done.
- Poking holes in arguments that "X must be correct because ...". Not difficult, but it often leads to the previous item, which is usually more interesting.
- Trying to help debug the various Wiktionary processes (e.g., the RfV process). They've been improving steadily over time with or without my participation, but I'd like to help.
- Holding forth at excruciating length on this or that language-related topic.
My basic inclinations haven't changed greatly. I hope to continue supplying actual evidence in the face of bald assertions, only partly because I find bald assertions irksome. More importantly, the real picture is invariably richer and more interesting. The bald assertion is just a prod.
The Wiktionary process seems to have been improving steadily in my absence, which is great! I see more templates, more and better-developed policies, more cultural conventions, and new faces. All good. The CFI and RfV appear to be working well, which is especially nice.