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.
Post Reply
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Brill's Dictionary

Post by Qimmik » Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:17 pm

Brill is offering a new Ancient Greek-English dictionary, which is a translation of Franco Montanari's Vocabolario della lingua greca. The translation was performed under the auspices of The Center for Hellenic Studies here in Washington, DC. The price in dollars, $125, doesn't seem unreasonable for a work of this nature.

http://www.brill.com/products/book/bril ... ient-greek

I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who is familiar with the Italian original or who knows anything about this project, either in this thread or in a private message.

Thanks!

Bill W.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3303
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by mwh » Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:36 pm

I use the Italian dictionary now and again, but generally stick to LSJ. LSJ may be a little out of date even with its Supplement Addenda, but it really is an excellent dictionary. The Vocabolario does win on weakly attested words, however (an independent ongoing project at Montanari’s Aristarchus site), and on later texts. But even in Italy LSJ retains primacy.

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by Timothée » Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:33 pm

So this new Brill dictionary came out last September. What are your experiences of it? I have not seen it, but apparently pages 514—547 are missing. How is it to use? Is there still place for LSJ?

Next we are to wait the new Cambridge dictionary.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by seneca2008 » Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:06 pm

I have bought the new Brill dictionary and find it very helpful. It is much better laid out than LSJ and easier to read. It is also a welcome change not to have fight through 19th century idiom. Its a pity the electronic version is only available as an expensive subscription.

It is not a translation of the Italian original. As it says in the preface "it is to be emphasized that the lexicon is not a translation of the italian definitions...the English version includes a not insignificant number of new lemmata." It takes account of the 2013 Italian new edition but the authors have not systematically compared all the entries with the Italian."

The authors also warn that as its a first edition there are bound to be some infelicities of expression.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by jeidsath » Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:50 pm

@Seneca2008

Can you post some images of example entries? I couldn't find a decent preview. The digital edition sounds interesting to me.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by seneca2008 » Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:12 pm

@jeidsath

Apparently I am not allowed to post links until I have posted 10 times.

Nonetheless if you you go the brill site and navigate to brill-dictionary-ancient-greek you can download a pdf which gives the first 20 or so pages of the dictionary as well as an explanation of how the entries are structured. Let me know if have any difficulty finding this.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by jeidsath » Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:53 pm

Oh, right there in front where I should have seen it. Thanks, seneca2008.

http://www.brill.com/sites/default/file ... review.pdf

I like the layout for verbs:

Image
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by Timothée » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:30 pm

Thank you for your replies. I chatted with my Greek professor today, and he said that the new dictionary has been quite serviceable to him. The structure of many articles is apparently clearer than in LS. He mentioned some rare word (I forgot what) apud Nonnus which he duly found in this dictionary.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by jeidsath » Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:46 am

mwh mentioned this dictionary in another thread, and reminded me that I had been meaning to post on this ever since I got my copy a few days ago. I have some opinions, but I thought it group discussion might be more useful than my opinions.

So please suggest an entry, and I will take a photograph of said entry and link in this thread along with the same from the LSJ, so that we can discuss.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by Markos » Sun Jan 31, 2016 6:13 am

jeidsath wrote:So please suggest an entry, and I will take a photograph of said entry and link in this thread along with the same from the LSJ, so that we can discuss.
ἀραῖος and/or καταλαμβάνω.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by jeidsath » Sun Jan 31, 2016 7:12 am

Brill ἀραῖος:

Image

LSJ ἀραῖος:

Image

Brill καταλαμβάνω:
http://imgur.com/a/DPil9 (as an album, since the article is too long)

LSJ καταλαμβάνω (with supplement):
http://imgur.com/a/8yN7Q
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by seneca2008 » Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:11 pm

I am responding here briefly to what Michael has said on another thread http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... 24#p179049 about the Brill dictionary.

I dont take what you say as an attack on brill. I think it is always wise to be cautious. I have spent several years arguing with a friend who insisted on giving priority to the first Italian edition. I always thought that for native English speakers to negotiate meaning through a third language was an unnecessary difficulty. I thought it was hard enough to map Greek meanings onto English. My friend was of course much more fluent in Italian and perhaps more unwilling to accept the difficulties.

I have had a cursory glance at the two entries for ἀγγέλλω. It is unsurprising that the citations are going to be similar as we are dealing with a fixed corpus which has been extensively analysed. Yet looking almost randomly LSJ gives the following taken from Perseus
Med., only pres., Τεύκρψ ἀγγέλλομαι εἶναι φίλος I announce myself to him as a friend, Id.Aj.1376.
Now allowing for the mistranscribed first word which should be τεύκρῳ and not Τεύκρψ (it is correct in the printed version) the translation of τεύκρῳ as an indirect object doesnt seem right. Brill has
➋ mid- dle (only pres.) to announce oneself: Τεύκρῳ ἀ έ ομαι εἶναι φίλος I announce that I am a friend of Teukros Soph. Ai. 1376
Brill here seems more accurate in translating the dative as a possessive. Indeed this is the way Jebb takes it.

I draw no general conclusions from this. I am glad we have another resource to add to the tried and tested LSJ.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by Hylander » Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:18 pm

Seneca, I have to disagree. Pace Jebb, Odysseus is saying not that he is a friend to Teucer, but a friend to Ajax, ὅσον τότ᾽ ἐχθρὸς ἦ -- to the same extent that he was previously hostile to him, i.e., Ajax.

1376-7:

καὶ νῦν γε Τεύκρῳ τἀπὸ τοῦδ᾽ ἀγγέλλομαι,
ὅσον τότ᾽ ἐχθρὸς ἦ, τοσόνδ᾽ εἶναι φίλος.

Teucer's response reflects this:

τούτῳ γὰρ ὢν ἔχθιστος Ἀργείων ἀνὴρ
μόνος παρέστης χερσίν, οὐδ᾽ ἔτλης παρὼν
θανόντι τῷδε ζῶν ἐφυβρίσαι μέγα,

Loosely: "You of all the Argives were the most hostile to this man [i.e., Ajax, not Teucer, who is speaking], yet you alone stood by him with physical support, and when he was dead and you stood by him alive, you did not stoop to dishonor him . . . "

They're talking about Odysseus' relationship to Ajax, not to Teucer himself. The whole play turns on the previous hostility between Ajax and Odysseus, and Odysseus' magnanimous change of heart after Ajax's death; and Teucer's role is secondary to this--as Ajax' half-brother, his role is to represent Ajax after the latter's death. So I think that LSJ is correct, and Brill (along with Jebb) is wrong.

It's possible that 1376 could be read to mean that Odysseus is now friendly to both Ajax and Teucer, but not to Teucer alone--the emphasis is clearly on Odysseus' transformed relationship, formerly hostile, now friendly, to Ajax.

ἔχθιστος in 1383 picks up ἐχθρὸς in 1377.

Incidentally, Lloyd-Jones' Loeb reflects my reading: "And now for the future I proclaim to Teucer that I am as much a friend as I was then an enemy." This can only refer to Odysseus' relationship to Ajax, so Τεύκρῳ must go with ἀγγέλλομαι, not φίλος.

Edit: This was written independently of mwh below.
Last edited by Hylander on Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3303
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by mwh » Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:29 pm

seneca2008 wrote:Brill has
➋ mid- dle (only pres.) to announce oneself: Τεύκρῳ ἀγγέλλομαι εἶναι φίλος I announce that I am a friend of Teukros Soph. Ai. 1376
Brill here seems more accurate in translating the dative as a possessive.
Νο. LSJ’s “I announce myself to him as a friend” has it right. The full quote is actually καὶ νῦν γε Τεύκρῳ τἀπὸ τοῦδε ἀγγέλλομαι, | ὅσον τότ’ ἐχθρὸς ἦ, τόσονδ’ εἶναι φίλος, which Lloyd-Jones translates “And now for the future I proclaim to Teucer that I am as much a friend as I was then an enemy.” It is an announcement made to Teucer.
(Jebb—or should that be “Jebb!” :wink: ?—did not take the dative as possessive either, btw. His note is better than his translation.)

As so often the Brill entry deleteriously and ignorantly tinkers with the LSJ entry which wholly underlies it.

EDIT. This written independently of Hylander above.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by seneca2008 » Sun Jan 31, 2016 6:46 pm

Thanks mwh and hylander. I see the force of your argument and it shows the dangers of commenting on plays I have not looked at recently.

I am not sure that I see that Jebb's note is inconsistent with his translation but I need to think about it further. I am more convinced by the difficulty of what Teucer says after Odysseus. However I am troubled by how Odysseus can be a friend of the now dead Ajax. Perhaps I am being too literal here.

I have just found my loeb and have discovered a note I have written but alas I cant read much of what I have written. So I must have thought about this at some stage. Eheu fugaces Postume Postume.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by Hylander » Sun Jan 31, 2016 6:56 pm

However I am troubled by how Odysseus can be a friend of the now dead Ajax. Perhaps I am being too literal here.
Don't be mislead by the English word "friend", which isn't necessarily exactly the same as the Greek word φιλοσ. Maybe the idea that Ajax is now dear to Odysseus would better capture the changed relationship that making Odysseus a "friend" of Ajax. Or perhaps Odysseus is now "kindly disposed" towards Ajax.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3303
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by mwh » Sun Jan 31, 2016 7:07 pm

As for the αραιος entry, kindly copied by jeidsath above, Brill takes LSJ’s entry (as usual) and dumbs it down, cutting out the data that make it interesting and informative. Those who like dumbed-down dictionaries will prefer it.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by jeidsath » Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:00 pm

How about we compare with an entry where the LSJ falls down? Chadwick's Lexicographica Graeca has a long article about the LSJ's treatment of ζῆλος.
LSJ's treatment of this word is more than usually confusing. The article is arranged thus:
I jealousy; eager rivalry, emulation. 2 c. gen. pers. zeal for, emulation of; absol. passion. 3 c. gen. rei, rivalry, emulous desire for; pl. ambitions. 4 fervour, zeal. 5 personified. II pride, honour, glory. III spirit; pl. tastes, interests. 2 style.
Part of the difficulty with this word is that it refers to both welcome and unwelcome emotions, which suggests that its original meaning may have been any outburst of emotion, though in fact this sense only appears in later Greek. If the examples in II are defined as the state of being admired, success, it becomes easier to see how it arose. But III is a dubious collection of examples, which will need discussion below.
And he continues his discussion for several pages. I've uploaded them to an album here: http://imgur.com/a/2EGfR

LSJ ζῆλος + supplement:
Image
Image

Brill ζῆλος:
Image
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by seneca2008 » Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:18 pm

I fear that the last remark by mwh is a little abrasive. Certainly the Brill entry for ἀραῖος is shorter but I dont think any essential information is missing. The intention is clearly to produce a more streamlined and easier to use dictionary. I think that the benefits are seen more clearly in the longer entries which are, I think, better structured. In the case of ἀραῖος I certainly think that replacing the LSJ "bringing mischief upon" by "that curses, deathly" is an improvement. This exemplifies what I feel is the (wrong) colouration that LSJ often gives. "Mischief" has I think rather altered in meaning over the last 70 years or so. It certainly has a different feel to how it was used in the 19th century.

Whilst I think that there is a case for updating language I would not pour scorn on anyone who chooses to stick with LSJ.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by seneca2008 » Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:17 pm

As a further example of the outdated language of LSJ I draw your attention to the following entries which arose in my reading this evening of Alcestis.

LSJ:
μον-άμπυξ , υ^κος, ὁ, ἡ, of horses,
A. [select] having one frontlet, μονάμπυκες πῶλοι horses that run single, race-horses, opp. chariots, E. Alc.428; μονάμπυκες alone, Id.Supp.586,680; of a bull, having no yoke-fellow, μονάμπυκος (-ον codd.) “ψήχων δέρην” Id.Hel.1567.
Brill:

I seem to have a problem getting the relevant Brill entry uploaded here. Perhaps someone with better computer skills might help?

Suffice it to say that Brill has "that which has a single bridle" and for the actual Alcestis line "mounted colts". Which is a bit more helpful than "frontlet".

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3303
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by mwh » Mon Feb 01, 2016 2:09 am

As Chadwick’s multitudinous (if often carping) criticisms of LSJ effectively suggest, LSJ could be organized on lexicographically different lines. Years ago there was a article by Michael Silk (I forget where) which made a more penetrating critique of LSJ’s lexicographical principles and practice. A radically differently organized dictionary would have been welcome. But of course it would be a mammoth undertaking, and it’s understandable that the new dictionary so very slavishly follows LSJ.

seneca2008, You make perfectly valid points. LSJ’s αραιος entry could be slimmed down without much harm. LSJ does tend to be a bit heavy on tragedy. And of course, as we’ve said before, LSJ’s language is sometimes oldfashioned. Updating it is not without its dangers, though. To translate μονάμπυκες πῶλοι as “mounted colts” is disgraceful, when μοναμπυκες means nothing like “mounted.” I can’t agree it’s “more helpful” if it bears no relation to the Greek. I’m sorry, but the more I see of this dictionary the less I like it.

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by Timothée » Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:45 am

mwh wrote:Years ago there was a article by Michael Silk (I forget where) which made a more penetrating critique of LSJ’s lexicographical principles and practice.
I looked for this and found an article which is probably the correct one, called LSJ and the Problem of Poetic Archaism: From Meanings to Iconyms (CQ vol. 33 [1983], 303—330). I haven't read it yet, but see that Silk ends his text saying, »I look forward to the tenth edition.»
Last edited by Timothée on Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by seneca2008 » Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:16 am

To translate μονάμπυκες πῶλοι as “mounted colts” is disgraceful, when μοναμπυκες means nothing like “mounted.”
It is interesting that you characterise this entry as "disgraceful" as if some sense of purity of meaning has been traduced but I think it reveals a very particular approach to the function of dictionaries. Mapping meaning between languages and cultures is inevitable an inexact process. This is especially true when dealing with poetry.

I quite like "mounted" as a suggestion and certainly in the context of E.Alc.428 it catches the contrast between the horses that are part of a chariot team and those that are ridden (ie "mounted"). I think you go too far when you say "μοναμπυκες means nothing like “mounted" ". Its a distinction which is suggested in LSJ "horses that run single, race-horses, opp. chariots". My main objection to LSJ is that frontlet with which the definition begins is an obsolete word which does not immediately help with elucidating the meaning of the passage. I don't find it a major fault and I only posted it because I happened to come across it in my ordinary reading.

Victor
Textkit Fan
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by Victor » Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:46 pm

seneca2008 wrote:
To translate μονάμπυκες πῶλοι as “mounted colts” is disgraceful, when μοναμπυκες means nothing like “mounted.”
It is interesting that you characterise this entry as "disgraceful" as if some sense of purity of meaning has been traduced
I'm not sure we need to bring the question of the meaning's purity into it; it looks more like the meaning itself has been traduced there.

User avatar
daivid
Administrator
Posts: 2741
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:51 pm
Location: ὁ τοῦ βασιλέως λίθος, London, Europe
Contact:

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by daivid » Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:48 pm

Given that LSJ is available for free with Diogenes http://www.aoidoi.org/diogenes/ isn't the big advantage in getting a hard copy of Brill is that it gives you a take on the Greek that isn't accessible otherwise?
λονδον

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:13 pm

daivid wrote:Given that LSJ is available for free with Diogenes http://www.aoidoi.org/diogenes/ isn't the big advantage in getting a hard copy of Brill is that it gives you a take on the Greek that isn't accessible otherwise?
Yes, I would gladly trade either one of my hard copy LSJs (1968, 1996) for a second opinion. If you can read Spanish there are contempoary lexical resources for Classical Greek. I don't have the titles.
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3303
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by mwh » Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:50 pm

Timothée, Yes that will be it, thanks for finding it. It’s years since I read it and I don’t really remember what it said, but I do remember thinking it was good, and it was probably formative in my own thinking.

seneca2008, And I thought I was being placatory!
I think I understand what you’re getting at. You’re defending “mounted” for μοναμπυκες as representing what the word amounts to in this particular context. Then this will be an unsignalled “sensu translato” interpretation, a reflex of the ancient lexicographical distinction between literal and metaphorical meaning (κυρίως vs. μεταφορικῶς, καταχρηστικῶς). I disagree with this interpretation (for the horses will not be mounted if they are to have their hair cut), but never mind that. My more fundamental objection is that it destroys the image; in fact it replaces one image (πωλοι with single αμπυκες) with another very different one (men riding on colts).

What the hearer or reader of the Alcestis encounters here is “single-bridled colts.” [Not exactly, since an αμπυξ is not a bridle and πωλοι could as well be female as male, and μοναμπυκας is a highflown word, but let’s accept the approximation.] Several mental steps are involved in getting from “single-bridled” to “mounted.” These are steps for the reader to take (or not), not a dictionary. For a dictionary to do this kind of decoding (even if it got it right) is false to the author, and cheats the reader. To take a less extreme example, a dictionary could render Πηλειδης as “Achilles” (and that too could be called “helpful”), but think how much it would erase in doing so.

I won’t add that “mounted colts” sounds rather like equine buggery to me.

daivid, To judge from my limited sampling, I’d say that Brill rarely gives a take on the Greek different from LSJ, and even more rarely a better one. Which is not surprising, given the wealth of unmatched accumulated expertise that went into LSJ's making.

Sterling, The main Spanish resource is Adrados’ Diccionario Griego-Español. Begun in the early sixties, it reached ἀλλά in 1980. Many such ambitious projects never get beyond alpha, but this one I understand is now into epsilon. Whether it will get any further I don’t know. Nor do I know how often it gives “a second opinion.” Not often, I hope.
I am confident there’ll never be an ancient Greek dictionary better than LSJ. Which is a bit of a pity, because in theory it could be made even better than it is.

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by Markos » Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:13 pm

Questions for Joel and anyone else who owns both editions: How do the font sizes compare? Does the binding of Brill look like it might hold up better than the Oxford edition of LSJ, which is notorious for falling apart quickly? Anything notable about the Brill paper? Joel, can you post screen shots of Brill which give us a sense of its overall size, cover, ability to lay flat etc?
daivid wrote:Given that LSJ is available for free with Diogenes http://www.aoidoi.org/diogenes/ isn't the big advantage in getting a hard copy of Brill is that it gives you a take on the Greek that isn't accessible otherwise?
Sure, this makes sense to me.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by Hylander » Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:12 pm

I have both. LSJ is much easier on my 70-year-old eyes.
Last edited by Hylander on Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by jeidsath » Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:38 pm

Does the binding of Brill look like it might hold up better than the Oxford edition of LSJ, which is notorious for falling apart quickly?
I'll answer Markos' other questions once I get home, but this I can answer now: Brill's binding is far inferior to the LSJ binding. It began falling apart the first day I received it.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by jeidsath » Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:56 pm

mwh wrote:I am confident there’ll never be an ancient Greek dictionary better than LSJ. Which is a bit of a pity, because in theory it could be made even better than it is.
My foremost impression of Brill is that it's not as interesting to look words up in as the LSJ. But I disagree with mwh's statement here!

I think that the next generation of the LSJ is going to be all digital, and take more of a wikipedia type approach. There will be considerably more scope for it to be an "all things to all people" dictionary, including both scholarship for scholars and basic information for learners.

You won't be able to follow wikipedia's anonymous contribution model, I don't think. Instead there will have to be scope for individual research, credit for scholarship, and requirements for contributors. I think it might even be possible to fund the project through institutional subscriptions.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3303
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by mwh » Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:56 am

You'll be interested—as am I—in the Cambridge Greek Lexicon project, which I meant to refer to in an earlier post.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by seneca2008 » Tue Feb 02, 2016 1:27 pm

Several mental steps are involved in getting from “single-bridled” to “mounted.” These are steps for the reader to take (or not), not a dictionary. For a dictionary to do this kind of decoding (even if it got it right) is false to the author, and cheats the reader.
The full entry is "that which has a single bridle, racehorse or saddlehorse". Then comes the suggestion "mounted colts" for Alcestis. Whatever the merits of this as a translation it is to my mind more helpful than the LSJ "having one frontlet, μονάμπυκες πῶλοι horses that run single, race-horses, opp. chariots,". It seems to me that mounted colts is simply a more economical way of saying "horses that run single", not in itself a very felicitous expression. I do, however, like the contrast with chariots.

I have now consulted Parker's commentary. Parker argues that μονάμπυξ means "a single horse with a brow-band, not, as one might expect with such a compound, a horse with one brow-band, as distinct from a horse with more than one. Compare μονόστολός at 407 above, "going on a mission alone" not "going on just one mission". Similarly at A.Supp.374 μονόσκηπτρος means "alone with the sceptre" or "autocratic"."

If one follows this line of thought "mounted colts" seems a more accurate translation in that it emphasises the distinction between a team of horses in a chariot and those that have to be controlled by a seated rider (as is the normal case with horses whether raced or simply ridden). Having now the benefit of Parker I prefer her "single, brow-banded steeds" but it is rather longer than the Brill suggestion.

You also objected as an aside to the notion that the horses would be ridden. You said "(for the horses will not be mounted if they are to have their hair cut),". I dont know where you get that idea from. You have to assume some kind of verb in "τέθριππά θ᾽ οἳ ζεύγνυσθε καὶ μονάμπυκας |πώλους, σιδήρῳ τέμνετ᾽ αὐχένων φόβην" as clearly "ζεύγνυσθε" does not seem appropriate word for a single riding-horse (as Parker observes). Parker suggests "ride". Whether the horses are actually being ridden or yoked at the time of the hair cutting seems irrelevant. Admetus' instruction is addressed to those who do those activities (yoking or riding) to do the cutting. Mounted colts means no more than colts that are (in general) mounted ie ridden.

So I dont see that Brill has "cheated the reader". It has provoked us to think more deeply about this passage. By ditching the idea of "single bridle" in favour of "single horse" it brings the definition of this word more into line with current scholarship.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by jeidsath » Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:13 pm

I looked up the relevant terms (see below), I think that Brill actually does better in context here.

Headstall:
Image

Bridle:
Image

Late classical bridle:
Image

Brill ἄμπυξ:
ἄμπυξ -υκος, ὁ [ἀνά, πύξ?; ἀμφί, πύξ?] band, for the forehead, diadem, to fasten a woman's hair IL. 22.469 AESCHL. Suppl. 431 EUR. Hec. 465 etc. || frontal, bridle, for a horse QS 4.111 || rim. of a wheel SOPH. Ph. 678 • fem. ἄμπυξ, ἡ SOPH. l.c. EUR. l.c.
LSJ ἄμπυξ:
ἄμπυξ, ῠκος, ὁ (ἡ S., E., v. infr.):--woman's diadem, frontlet, Il.22.469, A.Supp.431 (lyr., with play on 1.2), E Hec.465, Theoc. I.33. 2. horse's headband (Thess. acc. to Sch.Pi.O.5.15), Q.S. 4.511. II. rim of wheel, S.Ph.680 (lyr).
The LSJ supplement:
ἄμπυξ 2, for 'headband' read 'headstall' at end add 'Myc. a-pu-ke (pl.), sense II; cf. a-pu-ko-wo-ko = *ἀμπυκϝοργός, fem. occupational term'
And here are the various μοναμπύξ entries from Brill and LSJ:

Brill:
Image

LSJ:
Image
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by seneca2008 » Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:10 pm

Thank you Joel for all the interesting additional information. When I searched on line for frontlet I got pictures of scantily clad Indian (?) ladies with what I had always thought to be diadems.

I think you should return your Brill dictionary as being defective. I have had mine several months and it is still in good order. I have no compunction in complaining about poorly made books. More than a year after I had bought my OLD I found a page where I could not read an entry because it had been smudged in the printing process. It was replaced with no question and an apology. I was able to give away the defective but still usable original copy.

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:18 pm

Markos wrote: Does the binding of Brill look like it might hold up better than the Oxford edition of LSJ, which is notorious for falling apart quickly?
I'm not having problems with my copies of LSJ falling apart. I don't carry them in a backpack. I have a friend who used an early version of LS (dated sometime after the civil war) to get through greek at Dallas Seminary 45 years ago. It was hard to use, it kept shedding particles on you when you handled it. It now belongs to a young theology student who was gifted an entire language reference library (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) when my friend recently relocated to his home state.

Perhaps the recent printings have gone downhill. I wouldn't know.
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3303
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by mwh » Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:33 pm

τέθριππά θ᾽ οἳ ζεύγνυσθε καὶ μονάμπυκας
πώλους, σιδήρῳ τέμνετ᾽ αὐχένων φόβην.
(as a token of mourning for the premature death of his wife)

seneca2008, Thanks for the thoughtful comeback. Yes the way I’d put it is that μονάμπυκας πώλους is a typical composite form of poetic expression. (I tend to think of them as portmanteau expressions, but that’s inexact.) If you stop to analyze it you can say that the μονο- idea is transferred from the πωλοι to their αμπυκες. But such forms of expression are kind of fuzzy, and highflown; and the –αμπυκας component here is weak, as in other instances of this adjective and cognates. (Αs often in such compounds it’s the first element that bears the main weight—likewise with μονοστολῳ in 407.) μελαμπέπλῳ στολῇ in the previous line is a comparable composite. Only in elevated dialogue are such locutions are at home; they're right on the borderline with lyric (again, cf. μονοστολω).

It’s basically similar with ζευγνυσθε. The verb properly applies only to τεθριππα, the nearer noun, not to μοναμπυκας πωλους, but in this elevated poetic context it can carry over without undue strain. (We could call such modes of expression zeugmatic!) Just as with μοναμπυκας πωλους it’s not actually the αμπυκες that are single, so with τέθριππά θ᾽ οἳ ζεύγνυσθε καὶ μονάμπυκας πώλους it’s not actually yoking that’s done to the πωλοι. We have to take in each lexical complex as a complex, without breaking them down too rigorously. Of course this creates problems for dictionary makers, and for dictionary users.

Or that’s how I see it.

“it kept shedding particles on you when you handled it.” :D :D

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by seneca2008 » Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:59 pm

it kept shedding particles on you when you handled it.
I have the same problem with Denniston.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3303
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by mwh » Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:17 am

I really don’t want to go on criticizing the Brill dictionary, which I'm sure has its merits, but when I took a look at the μοναμπυκ- entries in the section imaged by Joel above, my eye caught the preceding entry μονάκανθος, which Brill (surely not Montanari?) derives from μονάς (sic) + ἄκανθος. Now that is disgraceful.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Brill's Dictionary

Post by jeidsath » Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:40 am

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.

Image

And most words are marked as derived from μόνος, not μονάς, but the following is an exception:

Image
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Post Reply