chad wrote:hi Will, i remember you said that before about the newer OCTs. are they reprints of older OCTs, or are they newly edited e.g. with lunate sigmas. i'm asking because i bought last year the 5-vol OCT set of plato, i think they're 1995 with lunate sigma
and very clear font and big bold letters in the app crit... they don't look like copies.
The Cambridge bicolors (the yellow and greens, the purples) give much less critical information but enough to let you find what you need if you decide to dig deeper.
adz000 wrote:What's your opinion about final sigmas and iota subscript?
(and if you were to start such a museum, you might want to begin your collection with this oddity I ran into on ebay the other day: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... eName=WDVW )
1%homeless wrote:Aparratus criticus, notes, annotation, commentary... is there actually a difference with all these terms? Are there more terms that exist that I didn't mention?
adz000 wrote:The Cambridge Greek & Latin series varies. Usually the text is nominally re-edited, but there's no apparatus criticus and only in extreme situations are variants noted on the same page as the text.
annis wrote:1. Annoyance. No one reading this post is phonating all the words. While we learn to read by sounding out the letters, and adult reader takes the whole word in and identifies it by shape. Only when we encounter a new word do we need to stop to phonate. I can read a lot of Greek the same way. When I see [face=spionic]au)tw=|[/face] or [face=spionic]lamba/neij[/face] I know immedately what they are. Both the subscript and the disctinct final sigma are part of that recognition system. When they are removed I suddenly have to stop over every word in which they occur. This is vexing.
annis wrote:I have never dealt much with Budé texts. In general I'm happy with any reasonably current edition from either Teubner or Oxford with one huge reservation - the print quality. I have editions from the 40s and 50s (or earlier) from both and these battered old books are usually easier to read than the most recent printings, which are usually photo-offset (i.e., expensive photocopies). I very much resent the cost of some of these books when I could produce a clearer copy for myself with a little copy-machine time. My Teubner Anacreontea is barely legible in some places, and this is a recent title. The spidery Teubner Gk font doesn't hold up well to photocopying. I had an OCT Pindar with one whole set of pages blurred because the page slipped during copying.
The most recent Teubner Iliad (West) is quite legible, uses a non-horrible font style, but is bit-mapped!
The other Oxford texts, like West's Iambi et Elegi Graeci or his Hesiods, are beautifully print and have the usual massive Westian ap.crit.
The Cambridge bicolors (the yellow and greens, the purples) give much less critical information but enough to let you find what you need if you decide to dig deeper. The Gk font is truly ghastly, but I'm picky about fonts.
It's a little bit disappointing that so many of my classical books have such shoddy printing when my Ancient Greek version of Harry Potter is beautifully typset and printed.
BTW, what is the 'lunate' sigma you're all talking about? Sounds dangerous
Emma_85 wrote:BTW, what is the 'lunate' sigma you're all talking about?
(although Goold's Manilius and Shack's Martial and Statius are superb).
Users browsing this forum: C. S. Bartholomew, Google Adsense [Bot] and 50 guests