Certainly HTOED has scholarly value, and value too perhaps as a modern thesaurus, though if you remove the archaic words, I wonder how much contemporary usage is left. The OED itself is really a de facto thesaurus, at least I use it. Embedded in all the many definitions for any entry are plenty of synonyms, which lead one to both other words and other concepts. That's the beauty -- in part, at least -- of the OED. I'll stick with the St. Martins thesaurus http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Robert+a+dutch&bi=0&bx=off&; ds=30&recentlyadded=all&sortby=17&sts=t&x=0&y=0. Wish this one was digital. Michael Norman >-----Original Message----- >From: xywrite-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xywrite-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf >Of flash >Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:11 AM >To: xywrite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: OED > >On 17/2/12 4:36 PM, Robert Holmgren wrote: >> As a practical matter, it seems pointless. > >Not if you're doing any kind of historical research, or reading a book printed a few >hundred years ago (such as the King James Bible). > ><MD FL>