Displaying 1 - 5 of 5
<p>A Tibetan-English glossary. (Bill McGrath 2008-01-03)</p>
<p>One of the principal dictionaries for the study of the literary language. Presents lists of terms, names, etc. Both in the material which Das gathered from Jäschke and that which was gotten from native sources there are found many errors and inaccuracies. (Michael Walter and Manfred Taube 2006-05-15, revised by Bill McGrath 2008-01-03)</p>
<p>Das was not the lexicographer Jäschke was, but his dictionary has become the unrivaled standard dictionary. His Sanskrit Synonyms are routinely wrong, and the dictionary has in general the feel of a great dictionary in need of another year of editing. (Nathan Hill 2007-12-13, revised by Bill McGrath 2008-01-03)</p>
<p>Although many of the translations given lack a creative feel for the language or culture, this is still one of the most comprehensive Tibetan-English dictionaries available, and is widely regarded as the standard in the field by non-scholars. (David Germano 2007-12-13, revised by Bill McGrath 2008-02-06)</p>
<p>One of the principal dictionaries for the study of the literary language. Presents lists of terms, names, etc. Both in the material which Das gathered from Jäschke and that which was gotten from native sources there are found many errors and inaccuracies. (Michael Walter and Manfred Taube 2006-05-15, revised by Bill McGrath 2008-01-03)</p>
<p>Das was not the lexicographer Jäschke was, but his dictionary has become the unrivaled standard dictionary. His Sanskrit Synonyms are routinely wrong, and the dictionary has in general the feel of a great dictionary in need of another year of editing. (Nathan Hill 2007-12-13, revised by Bill McGrath 2008-01-03)</p>
<p>Although many of the translations given lack a creative feel for the language or culture, this is still one of the most comprehensive Tibetan-English dictionaries available, and is widely regarded as the standard in the field by non-scholars. (David Germano 2007-12-13, revised by Bill McGrath 2008-02-06)</p>
<p>One of the principal dictionaries for the study of the literary language. Presents lists of terms, names, etc. Both in the material which Das gathered from Jäschke and that which was gotten from native sources there are found many errors and inaccuracies. (Michael Walter and Manfred Taube 2006-05-15, revised by Bill McGrath 2008-01-03)</p>
<p>Das was not the lexicographer Jäschke was, but his dictionary has become the unrivaled standard dictionary. His Sanskrit Synonyms are routinely wrong, and the dictionary has in general the feel of a great dictionary in need of another year of editing. (Nathan Hill 2007-12-13, revised by Bill McGrath 2008-01-03)</p>
<p>Although many of the translations given lack a creative feel for the language or culture, this is still one of the most comprehensive Tibetan-English dictionaries available, and is widely regarded as the standard in the field by non-scholars. (David Germano 2007-12-13, revised by Bill McGrath 2008-02-06)</p>
<p>One of the principal dictionaries for the study of the literary language. Presents lists of terms, names, etc. Both in the material which Das gathered from Jäschke and that which was gotten from native sources there are found many errors and inaccuracies. (Michael Walter and Manfred Taube 2006-05-15, revised by Bill McGrath 2008-01-03)</p>
<p>Das was not the lexicographer Jäschke was, but his dictionary has become the unrivaled standard dictionary. His Sanskrit Synonyms are routinely wrong, and the dictionary has in general the feel of a great dictionary in need of another year of editing. (Nathan Hill 2007-12-13, revised by Bill McGrath 2008-01-03)</p>
<p>Although many of the translations given lack a creative feel for the language or culture, this is still one of the most comprehensive Tibetan-English dictionaries available, and is widely regarded as the standard in the field by non-scholars. (David Germano 2007-12-13, revised by Bill McGrath 2008-02-06)</p>