In its final installment of the year, the New York Times uses a linguistic definition of “literary” to highlight the difference between what readers can do with literature and what they can do without.
The Times, which has been publishing a list of the top 50 “top 100 books” since 2004, now has a new list: “literature.”
In the Times article, the word is first defined in the dictionary as “the art or science of literature.”
It is used to describe a series of stories or works that describe, explain, or explain the world as a whole, or the ideas behind them.
The term also applies to a literary work that includes stories or writings in which the author is not the author.
The distinction is not only technical, but it’s important, because it helps readers understand the difference.
The dictionary defines “literacy” as a “general and pervasive interest in, or knowledge of, knowledge or truths which are of general application.”
“Literature,” the dictionary defines, “is not limited to the arts or sciences, but extends to the human condition and to human affairs and their consequences.”
According to the New England Center for the Study of American Literature, there are more than 1.5 million works in English and more than 4 million in other languages.
For the Times to include the word “litera” as one of the 100 best-known titles would be an extraordinary step, but that doesn’t mean the publication has gone too far.
The dictionary defines the word as “an abstract form of poetry that expresses thoughts or feelings in a way that is meaningful and compelling.”
So, yes, the phrase “literas” does sound like a literary title, and it does appear on the list.
But in order to make sense of the word, you have to understand the definition.
The “liter” part is an acronym, a phonetic abbreviation that stands for “letter of the alphabet,” or just “letters.”
“Linguistic” refers to the way the letters sound.
“Literary” refers in some way to the meaning or idea behind a word.
“Languages” refers specifically to a set of words and the way they’re used.
So, the English language uses two different words for the same thing.
“Literature” in the Times definition is “the practice of reading or thinking about literature in a systematic way.”
It’s also not a definition of the words themselves, but a way of describing the practice of “reading” or “thinking” about the world.
It’s the same way a dictionary definition would be: “the science or study of literature, its practices, and their applications.”
When it comes to the difference in how people can do the “literation” they’re doing, that’s where the Times’ definition has a problem.
For one thing, the distinction is only technical.
In the Times dictionary, the words “literar” and “literatura” stand for “literaries.”
The dictionary doesn’t define “literate” in terms of the kinds of books it’s about, but instead, it says it’s a “literarist,” a person who thinks about and writes about the “world.”
That makes the distinction a technical one, but doesn’t change the fact that the word can be used in a variety of ways.
In some ways, the Times’s definition of literature is even less interesting than the definition of languages.
The English language is a complex, multifaceted system that encompasses a wide variety of uses, not just “literatures.”
So to be a “literal” definition of a term like “literatic,” the word would have to be defined in terms more in keeping with the nuances of the English vocabulary.
And when it comes time to define a “linguistic” definition, there’s a problem, too.
While the New Yorker dictionary has the distinction of being the “most widely read English language dictionary,” its definition of literary works is vague and vague.
It doesn’t say what it means to be “literati” in English, nor does it say that the term is “used in English” or that it’s an adjective that describes a person.
The New Yorker doesn’t distinguish between a literary book and a non-literary book, either.
To be clear, the dictionary doesn´t define what constitutes a “Literate.”
The New Yorker’s definition is a linguistic term, but there’s little evidence it has been used in the English-speaking world for years.
For example, the Oxford English Dictionary lists the word in its “Lexicon of Modern English Usage” as “a term or expression used in English in a technical way to designate books, books for children, or other work of fiction.”
That definition also doesn’t describe the term “literator.”
To add insult to injury, the