The editing in this case refers not only to collecting and arranging of the 117 pieces written in English but also to correction and some revision where necessary.  These are arranged very roughly into 9 groups. Within each group the arrangement is roughly from general to specific subject-matter. (Specific studies are treated as general if their main thrust is general, the specific element being illustrative in intention.) Some effort has been made, not wholly successful, at a certain uniformity in format, terminology, romanization, referencing, and notes. In a single-author collection spread over 50 years, a certain amount of duplication has crept in, but no attempt has been made to avoid or even reduce it. There are a couple of reasons for this policy. Readers have often complained of the author’s presentations being extremely concise. The editorial revision has occasionally made this concision a little less extreme but not nearly enough. Actually, differing formulations of the same content may serve to reduce the reader’s discomfort. The duplication may also help the curious reader some glimpse into the author’s intellectual life-history. Then there is the possibility of the reader’s missing the treatment of certain topics. This collection does not represent the author’s total intellectual effort. There are his book-length presentations, of course. He has also widely published in Marathi and Hindi. There have been efforts to translate across these languages in different directions. (Thus, item 96 was first written in Hindi and then in Marathi and English.) But this has not happened consistently. If a reader senses a gap and if a Marathi/Hindi piece fills it, the author will be happy to arrange for a translation.
There are probably going to be two other sources of puzzlement for the reader. First, I have made no distinction between the relatively more esoteric (more specialized or sophisticated or theoretic) and the relatively more exoteric (less specialized or less sophisticated or more practical). How does one tell apart essays and studies? I find such distinction of limited use but largely otiose, even as some artists find the distinction between art with a capital A and art for the ordinary people needless if not unacceptable. The other source of puzzlement would be the apparently rambling outreach of the subject matter. Let me assure the reader that the outreach is only apparent. The author’s formal training and professional competence happens to be in the fields of language and literature. He has also taught himself semiotics and some philosophy, and gained a foothold in the scientific and historical study of culture and society. This is not wholly a biographical accident; there was also a felt intellectual need. Perhaps language and literature occupy such a strategic position in human and humane studies, and perhaps a modern Indian occupies such a strategic historical and geographical position. What is it then that holds this collection together? There is no unifying theme or question; rather there is a single point of view (in the 18th-Century European idiom) or a single diṭṭhi (in the Buddhist idiom) or a single naya (in the Jain idiom). Hence the title ‘From a semiotic-humanistic point of view’. (Pieces that will help the understanding of my point of view are marked with an asterisk * in the table of contents; pieces that notably exemplify the resulting views of the landscapes/scenarios are marked with a dagger in the table of contents.)
If only the reader does not worry about the level (popular/sophisticated) or the rubric (linguistics, literary theory or the like)! If only he or she trusts himself/herself and trusts me! What Antoine Meillet used to say of language, namely, Tout se tient (everything holds) may turn out to be true of this collection of essays and studies.
Here are the nine groups:
A         Language and linguistics
B         On languages
G         On aesthesis and art
            In the table of contents each title is followed by the year of the first publication of the piece even if the piece has reappeared later. Where there has a substantial gap between writing and first publication, both the years are recorded. Where the paper has remained unpublished so far, the letter ‘u’ shows this.

            Happy browsing!