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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 