Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

'M&B16 Diverging Further' has the accompanying comment on suffixes RightBlinker and Leftblinker. On 6.January.2012 started this one by one search for example and definition each suffix, http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=28341, one could say that twelfth day of xmas and first day of epiphany not by happenstance.  
Most discussion has been on -Hopper, but also covered are Lady, Hound, Dueller, Guide and Scout. There are more than these 150 suffixes listed because sometimes Charles Gilman defines a prefix instead that serves same generic purpose to accomodate multiple p-ts and ought to make the list. For instance Nervous as prefix defined in M&B16. More suffixes remain in comments only, and still more I would add for multi-path pieces that Gilman tends to exclude. So we get offshoots of 3-path -Falcon utilizing the logical suffix, 4-path -Scorpion using that particular chosen suffix, and so on. Easily then there are 200 suffixes to elucidate not only the 150 formally here already. However, about 100 belong to Square geometry being highlighted. Four-year-old M&B16 has unusually high number of CV citations of examples from Outback to Tetrahedral, and the Blinker usages are just about a paragraph. Related and unmentioned there is Centennial Rotating Spearman, having half directions capture and half move only. What separate suffix applies to that p-t subclass, justifying the omission?

Thus there are prefixes not among the 150 listed suffixes. One is Nervous in M&B16 and another is She.  'She-' is the indicator a doubly-bent rider has Rook option, and -Hound the double-bend rider has Bishop option. Those couple dozen specialized prefixes around also just convenience a piece-type name within a single word.  That SheWolf is Stiles' Wolf plus Rook. 
A regular suffix -Blinker leads to the sentence in M&B16: ''Thus a Nightblinker is a Nightranker capturing as a Nightfiler.'' What does that mean?

At Harvard I sat in on graduate courses taught by Sheldon Glashow and did not really understand a full sentence of lectures then. Likewise to Physics, there are levels of appreciation of CVs developed or developing. Start with any CV and learn the rules, then graduate to articles about cvs. //// Gilman is cataloguing frantically to get credit for a 1000 p-ts, realizing they can be done en masse. Why M&Bxxs are a difficult ''read'' compared to the German and French glossaries Knappen has linked can be explained. Gilman through M&Bxxs is naming and listing specific p-ts numbering over 2000 without overmuch explanation.  One is left to figure out the piece-type definition from the suffixes and constructed name.  It's do-able but not very easily for the average reader, so you just take them one at a time as needed.  I search a M&Bxx just to find a sentence on a Hopper or what a Point as a Pawn means, as two small examples. The 21 M&Bxxs are a Reference like a Dictionary.  You don't read all the 'H' words to get clear on 'Heredity', just the one word or one or two piece-types.
Frankly Gilman's transitions from 2-d to 3-d and back, from Scout to Dueller, on and on and on, are confusing at best, unnecessary to read more than paragraph or sentence needed to answer an argument.  However, digging into any section or topic more than that, it is found to have incredible accuracy and consistency. Far more so than Betza's little effort of the past, http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=614. Betza's work distracts differently by his constant sarcasm and dispersed diluted substance. In comprehensiveness, M&Bxxs including glossary and indexes, are unlikely to be surpassed any decade soon before year 2060.  Take it or leave it. Or be shamed it was done under your watch without recognition.