Textkit Logo

Brill's Dictionary

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Thu Feb 04, 2016 7:55 pm

seneca2008 wrote:
it kept shedding particles on you when you handled it.


I have the same problem with Denniston.


I solved that by shedding my copy of Denniston.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby mwh » Fri Feb 05, 2016 3:53 am

I hope you gave it to someone who could appreciate it.

jeidsath wrote:Brill might be wrong -- I can't judge -- but I don't think it's a typo. The entry on μονάς seems to take some later Greek into account.

No it’s not a typo, it’s incompetence. μονάκανθος is a perfectly ordinary μονο- compound. The alpha belongs to -ακανθος, just as with μοναμπυξ. μονάς doesn’t come into it.

And the –ακανθος element is formed on ἄκανθα, not ἄκανθος.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby seneca2008 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:45 pm

I really don’t want to go on criticizing the Brill dictionary...


Its clear you can resist everything except temptation.

Brill gives four words with a derivation from μονάς apart from μονάζω and μονάκανθος for example μοναδικός with several references to Aristotle. Whether this is wrong or not I too am not able to judge, but the entries are sequential. Nevertheless I am not particularly persuaded by terms like "a perfectly ordinary μονο- compound".

The preface to the dictionary says that there are likely to be errors as it is a first edition. Perhaps we should collect them and send them off. That would at least be helpful.
User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Timothée » Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:01 pm

seneca2008 wrote:The preface to the dictionary says that there are likely to be errors as it is a first edition. Perhaps we should collect them and send them off. That would at least be helpful.

Of course errare humanum est, though this mistake does seem quite elementary for the black-belt Graecists who have compiled the dictionary. Μονάς belongs to the 3rd declension, μόνος to the 2nd. Thus μονάς (genitive μονάδος, stem μοναδ-(ο)-) would compound into **μοναδάκανθος, which looks quite different. But they undoubtedly correct it for the next edition.

Or perchance the compilers have a completely new take on Greek morphology.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Paul Derouda » Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:50 pm

Timothée wrote:But they undoubtedly correct it for the next edition.

Well, they'd better as this thread will show up in Google searches εις απαντα τον αιωνα!
User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1875
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby jeidsath » Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:15 pm

Oh, I'm sure that the images will go down eventually. And I don't know if anybody is actually archiving these things. (Hello, future historians! -- If you are reading this, my sympathies to you on your poor choice of graduate school.)

Here is a picture of a stack of dictionaries for Markos:

Image
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Savonarola89 » Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:51 am

From the advertising the Brill Dictionary appears to have better coverage of Patristic Greek than does LSJ. I remember reading somewhere that it included the lemmas from Lampe as well as those from LSJ. Would anyone here be able to speak to this? Thanks!
Savonarola89
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:42 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby mwh » Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:28 am

I said that, at the end of viewtopic.php?f=2&t=64524. But I have properly tested it.

EDIT. For "have" read "haven't"
Last edited by mwh on Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Savonarola89 » Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:43 am

That was exactly what I was referring to as it turns out! Can anyone speak to this? Brill's dictionary certainly isn't cheap—but a used copy is in reach. Lampe's lexicon is simply outrageously priced.
Savonarola89
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:42 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Dante » Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:11 am

looking at the pdf preview, I like the clarity of the fomatting but the information level is closer to the Middle Liddle than to LSJ. That is to say, it doesn't replace LSJ, but it could be a replacement for the Middle Liddle.
Last edited by Dante on Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dante
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:33 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby mwh » Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:59 am

The Brill dictionary definitely scores over the main LSJ when it comes to patristic Greek, but very little else, apart from weakly attested words which few will be interested in and perhaps the look on the page. LSJ’s patristic and ecclesiastical coverage was spotty (much ameliorated in the 1996 Revised Supplement however). Beyond that, as I said earlier, LSJ for all its out-of-date-ness has seemed to me consistently better than the less knowledgeably edited Brill product. But if it’s patristic Greek you’re interested in and you can’t afford Lampe, I guess a discarded copy of Brill might be your best bet. But I can’t recommend it. Its faults are too many and too deep, and I don’t see it getting much better in future editions either.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Savonarola89 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:34 pm

What is your opinion of Lampe? Are there any other lexicons that cover Patristic Greek?
Savonarola89
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:42 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby mwh » Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:11 pm

LSJ Rev.Suppl. includes most of the words but is not at all patristically oriented. Before Lampe there was E.A.Sophocles’ incredibly wide-ranging Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, in many ways obsolete but still serviceable and in some areas (but not patristics) still not superseded over 150 years later. It’s a marvelous work (and in English, conveniently), and it’s available for free on the internet. Just google it. So I think you could well use that in preference to the Brill dictionary. But when it comes to patristics Lampe is now really the only game in town.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Savonarola89 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:04 pm

So really, if I'm serious, I will just have to get Lampe!

If I had LSJ, Lampe, BDAG ( not the brill iteration), Muraoka for the LXX, and Sophocles, is there anything else that would be considered "essential"? Thanks so much for the help!
Savonarola89
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:42 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Savonarola89 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:08 pm

Also I've heard complaints about the print quality of new copies of LSJ. Would it be better to get a copy of the 1940 edition and then purchase the supplement separately?
Savonarola89
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:42 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby mwh » Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:23 pm

If you had Lampe you wouldn’t need Sophocles (which is pre-Migne anyway), and if you want to read only patristic Greek you wouldn’t need LSJ either.

I can’t advise on LSJ. I bought mine new in 1996 (from OUP, $100) and have no complaints of it. It’s stood up very well to constant use. It’s the best-bound 2500-page book imaginable, and with clear type throughout, and no wasted space.
Last edited by mwh on Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Dante » Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:25 pm

I'm not sure why anyone would want a hard copy of LSJ when the various online and digital versions are so much easier to use (and read!).
User avatar
Dante
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:33 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby mwh » Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:42 pm

Then let me tell you. It’s easier to make notes in a hard copy; and it’s easier to consult multiple pages more or less simultaneously; and I learnt to be fast at finding the entries I want; and it’s what I’m used to; and it’s mine. :D

The first reason is the main one.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby ailuros » Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:53 pm

plus, i usually get enjoyably lost in the analog versions just by not having automatic retrieval of the desired word. great way to waste a bit of time!
ailuros
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Timothée » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:10 pm

1940 edition (and maybe 1950s [and 1960s?] reprint, too) is typeset, 1996 edition offset. The letters will be a little sharper in typeset edition, but I don't have big complaints about the newest (last?) edition.

Weird differences can be found between Intermediate LS and the big 'un. I noticed that in the former we have s.v. πύππαξ "an exclamation of surprise, bravo ! Plat.", in the latter "an exclamation of admiration, bravo ! Pl. Euthd. 303a, Com. Adesp. 1130."
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby jeidsath » Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:05 pm

Brill is nothing like Lampe and no replacement for it whatsoever.

On LSJ typeset -- I have a rebound copy of the 1888 edition (at the bottom of the stack in the above picture). I bought it because the typeset is *far* clearer than my new LSJ, and entries aren't shoved together just to save space. It is far easier to use. Notice καμινώ, καμινώδης, especially.

I've taken pictures below. The picture actually makes the typeset of the new edition look better than it actually is. It's far harder to pick out sections.

1888:

Image

9th revised edition with Supplement:

Image

I hate the supplement.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby mwh » Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:07 pm

True, but the newer edition gives more (and more up-to-date) information, and its grouping of cognate entries (so long as it doesn’t interfere with the alphabetical organization, which it doesn’t) is an asset. So I’d use the newest edition until it makes you blind. Then you can use the audio version that you’ll have produced.

As for the Supplement that you hate so much, it’s a pity it couldn’t be incorporated in the main lexicon, but I’d rather have requisite revision and new info than not, and having the revisions separate, and flagged in the main lexicon, enables you to see where progess had been made since the earlier edition. And if you don’t want to use the Supplement you don’t have to. You can stay stuck in 1888 if you prefer.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Savonarola89 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:20 pm

So is the supplement incorporated into the body of the text or do you have to flip back and forth? Thanks!
Savonarola89
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:42 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby mwh » Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:39 pm

You have to flip. And you should be burnt at the stake for causing such trouble.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Timothée » Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:41 pm

As mwh just said, it isn't incorporated to the main text. Different font etc. in the supplement. It can be bought as a book on its own. There are of course marks (a star) on each lemma whereupon there is added information. And there are completely new lemmata, too, so remember to check also that if a word is not found.

Although it'd have been ideal to incorporate the supplement to the main text, I don't find it that bad. First study an entry in the main, then go to the supplement to see what has been added or amended.

As for grouping entries, because of alphabetical order one still knows that the one one is looking for is between this and the next lemma, so to me it's not disturbing.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby jeidsath » Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:07 am

mwh will be happy to hear that the dictionary that stays open on my stand is the Ninth Edition Revised, not the 1888. But the poor typeface, the block grouping of entries, and the supplement, do a lot to detract from my pleasure in using it. I disagree with Timothée and mwh on grouping entries (as do the editors of the new Brill). I can live with the grouping, but it slows me down when scanning the page. Try looking up καμινώ in the above images to see.

It is possible that my Ninth Edition Revised is printed on crappier paper than everybody else's -- I bought it 1-2 years ago -- and that's what my eyes are really complaining about. I don't know.

Getting a separate supplement to avoid the flipping sounds like a great idea.

Given the digitalization work already done, a Ninth and Half Edition of the LSJ mainly concentrated on unifying the supplement and improving usability does not sound too hard (infinitely less work than Brill). I would be surprised if it's not already on the drawing board.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Savonarola89 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:22 am

So if I got a two volume copy of any edition printed since 1940 and also purchased the supplement by itself I wouldn't be missing anything right? Wishing Lampe was cheaper!
Savonarola89
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:42 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby jeidsath » Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:35 am

Post-1888 editions of the LSJ also removed space by writing the Greek lemma as a single letter followed by a period in usage examples, eliminated made the white space between definitions shorter, and abbreviated Latin and English explanations mercilessly.

They should have broken it up into two volumes instead.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:08 pm

Savonarola89 wrote: Wishing Lampe was cheaper!
j

My copy of Lampe sits gathering dust[1] on top of 1968 LSJ, 1996 LSJ was used once last week because my computer was sleeping and I didn't want to disturb it. All of the above require a magnifier for reading. So I use all the digital stuff most of the time. TLG Lampe is just gloss lists for Lampe, at least for non-paying users. I wonder if you get a full text Lampe when you subscribe. The New Spanish Lexicon is on TLG public access which is nice.

There is a real need for a new generation of Greek scholars to shed the 19th century mentality in regard to lexical semantics. In that regard the Hebrew[2] lexical tools are headed in a the right direction having not yet arrived however. Louw & Nida NT lexicon is showing its age.

[1] where it will continue to sit until my library gets handed over to the next generation.
[2] http://www.sdbh.org/vocabula/index.html
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby mwh » Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:38 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:
Savonarola89 wrote: Wishing Lampe was cheaper!
j

My copy of Lampe sits gathering dust[1] on top of 1968 LSJ (...)

[1] where it will continue to sit until my library gets handed over to the next generation.

So we can assume you don’t often read the Church Fathers? Sounds like Savonarola might appreciate your dusty Lampe more than the next generation.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Savonarola89 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:49 pm

That I would! :-) And the dusty copy of the 1968 LSJ. I am no Luddite, but digital lexicons are no substitute for print when it comes to learning to use a language for the long term. My address is 19 Elwood Point Rd Apt. A, Bremerton WA, 98312 if you are feeling extraordinarily and exceptionally generous. ;-)
Savonarola89
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:42 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:33 am

PM sent Savonarola89 05-27-16.
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Victor » Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:01 am

jeidsath wrote:mwh will be happy to hear that the dictionary that stays open on my stand is the Ninth Edition Revised, not the 1888. But the poor typeface, the block grouping of entries, and the supplement, do a lot to detract from my pleasure in using it. I disagree with Timothée and mwh on grouping entries (as do the editors of the new Brill). I can live with the grouping, but it slows me down when scanning the page. Try looking up καμινώ in the above images to see.

It is possible that my Ninth Edition Revised is printed on crappier paper than everybody else's -- I bought it 1-2 years ago -- and that's what my eyes are really complaining about. I don't know.

Getting a separate supplement to avoid the flipping sounds like a great idea.

Given the digitalization work already done, a Ninth and Half Edition of the LSJ mainly concentrated on unifying the supplement and improving usability does not sound too hard (infinitely less work than Brill). I would be surprised if it's not already on the drawing board.

I'm not sure whether you're aware (not read entire thread; sorry!) but your 1888 edition is the 7th, i.e. not the edition that immediately preceded LSJ. Your remarks about the layout of post 1888 editions are not quite right, therefore, I think.

The layout and wording of the entry for kaminos in the 8th edition I have in front of me are identical to that pictured in the scan from your 7th edition. I have a 7th edition as well somewhere (as well as a fifth, sixth, and two ninths). Apparently the 8th's difference from the 7th is the presence of "such corrections...as could be inserted without altering the pagination". I don't know how extensive these corrections are without going off and being an "anorak" collator for an hour or two, but they're presumably not very.

Reprints of LSJ since 1996, when the supplement (of, I think,1968) was first bound in making a single volume, are generally harder on the eye because the photographic reproduction is rather poor, with typically many words on almost every page that have noticeably "broken" letters where the ink is partly missing. A magnifier may be needed by some for this to be discernible, but you can just about detect this in your scan, where the n of "oven" and one in "burning", and the h of "dishes" are noticeably lacunose. The lacunae elsewhere in the letters can be worse and more frequent than this, as you yourself suggest.

Both my copies of LSJ are letterpress printed (i.e. with metal type/plates), as was your 1888 edition. You may be able to feel the type impressions on the page (or see them, if you let a light fall across the page at a low angle). Your recent edition of LSJ won't have any detectable depth to the lettering, I'd imagine, and, as we know, the reproduction does not come up to the old standard. Old technology isn't always inferior to modern.

I'll stop there, since this is not the place to bang that particular drum.
Victor
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:32 am

here is a quote from some recent work[1] on Egyptian lexical semantics:

The first one is devoted to the polysemous verb fX , “release, etc.” in Earlier
Egyptian. The author shows how key concepts of cognitive linguistics — such as
radial category structure and image schemata — can be used to describe and organize
the senses of this polysemic item. The conceptual category of the verb is analyzed as
consisting of a radial network of meanings extended from a central prototypical sense
with a high degree of embodied and interactional salience, namely “letting go an
object held in the hand”. All of the attested meanings of the verb are accounted for by
image-schematic variation and metaphorical extension based on this central prototypical
meaning. This case study ends with the discussion of two ways of presenting
certain aspects of a radial category with diagrams, which are meant to illustrate the
findings of the lexical semantic analysis. In the second case study, Nyord shows that
cognitive linguistic approaches allow us to study lexical meaning not only at the level
of individual lexical items, but also at the more general level of conceptual domains
(based on conceptual metaphor theory).


This shows evidence of theoretical development in Egyptian lexical semantics. Biblical Hebrew lexical semantics has been traveling down a similar but not identical road.

contextual semantic domains. ... Domains for Biblical Hebrew
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/ar ... 313980.pdf

Lexica developed from this sort of theory are not going to be friendly to print media as a delivery system. Louw and Nida proved that decades ago.

[1]Lexical Semantics in Ancient Egyptian
Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis & Jean Winand (eds.)
Widmaier Verlag ∙ Hamburg
2012

[2] http://www.sdbh.org/vocabula/index.html
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Hylander » Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:30 am

here is a quote from some recent work[1] on Egyptian lexical semantics:


Quite frankly, while this sort of analysis is perhaps interesting in itself from a linguistic perspective, it would be of little use to me in reading and understanding ancient Greek texts. If I had another life to live--this one is winding down--I might study Greek or some other languages from the perspective of syntactic theory and Greek lexical semantics. But non omnia possumus omnes. Right now I just want to read as much as I can, and superb traditional reference works such as LSJ and Smyth and Denniston (and even Cooper, to the extent I can find my way around in it) give me the answers I need for my purposes without elaborate theoretical baggage. LSJ, in particular, usually gives the full semantic range of words, as well as a lot of information about complements and usage; and the traditional grammars, based largely on minute and painstaking examinations of ancient Greek texts by 19th century scholars, are generally reliable guides to syntax.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:45 am

Hylander wrote:
here is a quote from some recent work[1] on Egyptian lexical semantics:


If I had another life to live--this one is winding down--I might study Greek or some other languages from the perspective of syntactic theory and Greek lexical semantics.


I understand. We do have relatively young students on this forum. There are people doing this sort of work in all sorts of ancient languages. I really wonder why anyone with laptop and broadband would want to fuss with a physical object that is difficult to use. I saw the photo in this thread with stack lexicons and was amazed!
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby mwh » Wed Jun 29, 2016 3:12 am

Stirling, There’s actually nothing new here. Even LSJ adopts what is here termed a “radial category structure.” I open it at random (yes, a physical book, how quaintly passé): there’s μένω. It’s initially defined as “stay, wait”: there’s your “central prototypical sense with a high degree of embodied and interactional salience." The categorized and subcategorized senses given by the remainder of the entry correspond to the “radial network of meanings” with their image schemas and metaphorical extensions.

It’s true that the standard linear organization of dictionary entries does a poor job of presenting this kind of lexical semantic analysis. That was always obvious, and did not need Louw and Nida to "prove" it. Two-dimensional diagrams are better, but they too are inadequate. How long do we have to wait for a 3-D form of presentation?

Nor is there anything new about the concept of semantic domains. I think Venn diagrams are a good way of dealing with these, though once again 3-D would be better.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:07 pm

I have known professional linguists that who pay little or no attention to print media lexicons. There were discussions on b-greek around the turn of the century where translation consultants working in east Africa were posting regularly. I recall being surprised when one of them said he didn't bother to haul BAGD 2nd ed. 1979 to Africa since he rarely used it. With the advent of tagged texts sometime in late 1980s the bible translators were the first people to adopt this technology. The LXX people at U Penn were also very early in this field. The first tagged text I acquired was U Penn LXX.

With the tagged texts for Biblical texts and the TLG for everything else, the role of the print lexicon diminishes to the vanishing point for some professional linguists. They way they go about doing lexical semantic research is to read a work in context in well over 100 samples to get the flavor directly from the setting, scenario, context, what ever you want to call it.

These linguists are not native speakers of English. One fellow was Finnish and for some reason (Linux?) he didn't have TLG on his laptop. He would send me requests for searches on grammatical and lexical data in TLG and I would e-mail him 300 samples with a little context, 10 lines. And he would read hundreds of these samples. This went on for years. I learned a lot in the process.

I still use LSJ (electronic version) almost every day. But it complements other work. The fact that I hyperlink from the LSJ citations to the text in the TLG makes it very handy. I don't spend much time pondering the english glosses provided in LSJ. They don't have much value. The english is antiquated. They don't provide extensive insight into the scenario where the word was used. There is a little bit of that but it is brief for obvious reasons. It would end up being the size of the Oxford English Dict.

I have lots of print media dictionaries. I use them. For new students, I would tell them get the software. Register with TLG. For the most studied classical works TLG is free of charge.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby Victor » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:00 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Lexica developed from this sort of theory are not going to be friendly to print media as a delivery system. Louw and Nida proved that decades ago.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:I have known professional linguists that who pay little or no attention to print media lexicons...I don't spend much time pondering the english glosses provided in LSJ. They don't have much value. The english is antiquated. They don't provide extensive insight into the scenario where the word was used.

You've got me scratching my head wondering whether I and many like me have perhaps been seriously deluded all these years in believing that the standard reference resources we have been reliant on are adequate tools for studying Greek in many circumstances.

I'm eager with anticipation for the huge strides in classical scholarship (and maybe in the learning and teaching of Latin and Greek) your unequivocal commendation of digital technology and depreciation of its more primitive counterpart seems to predict for us.
Victor
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Postby mwh » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:05 pm

Sterling, Why does it always have to be about you and your personal history? It would be more valuable if you took up the points and suggestions I offered in my post, which might even enable you to make an original contribution to the field. Your kneejerk disdain seems to have blinded you to LSJ’s semantic field category distinctions and to the fact that what you describe as the current practice of some professional linguists was also the practice of the makers of LSJ, working without the benefit of automatically tagged texts. Of course the results are inadequate (what you desiderate would end up being several orders of magnitude more than the size of the OED), but they’re still the best thing going.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

PreviousNext

Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 59 guests