Two Weeks Later

When does the word 'concise' stop being correctly applied simply through relativity and start being just the wrong word to use? Today I found 'The McGraw Hill Concise Encyclopaedia of Science' - or something along those lines. However, the encyclopaedia had:

a)two volumes on the shelf

b)about 4000 pages in each volume

c)very large surface areas

I wouldn't have called that concise. But apparently it had been adapted from the McGraw Hill Encyclopaedia of Science. I.e not concise. So in other words, concise is a relative term meaning, 2 volumes long instead of 10. But surely there's a point where concise just doesn't really apply. If you cut it from 20 volumes to 10 it's shorter, but if the entries are still quite long its not concise. Right?

My point? Food for word-thoughts. Love it