Cambridge Greek Lexicon

Greek Learning Greek
21

Thanks very much for posting this and the all the links.

I read the following in the interview with prof. Diggle

"Some more advanced users of the lexicon may be surprised to find there are no citations provided, only authors. Can you explain the reasoning behind this decision?

The attestation of a word or sense is indicated by author abbreviations, not by citation of precise references to specific passages. Nor, for the most part, are Greek quotations given. The omission of such citations and quotations allows room for the inclusion of a great deal of additional material, in particular for fuller description of meanings and for illustration of usage in a wider range of passages. Citation of specific passages, especially if they are not translated, can be unhelpful to the learner, and, by their very selectivity, are in danger of giving a partial or distorted picture."

I think the point made by prof. Diggle in the last sentence about the danger of citations giving “a partial or distorted picture” is important. It’s relatively easy to look the passages up oneself now there are so many electronic resources available. All published dictionaries are inevitably a compromise. I don’t see the lack of citations as a “problem”.

22

Hi all, on the lack of citations, I think it’s important to distinguish two things here.

First, lack of citations in the published output. As others have said, this is fine: it’s comparable to other short- or medium-length dictionaries on the market.

Second, lack of citations in the underlying source code (or however one refers to this). As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I really hope the project has somehow tagged citations for the different word senses, even if this information isn’t printed in the published output. I mention this because the information we can see online suggests that they haven’t.

Look at the XML screenshot under “Tagging the lexicon here”, halfway down the page:

https://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/glp/tagging

Between the “Au” and “/Au” tags, there’s just an author abbreviation—no citations. We can see something similar in the XML that they show in the introductory video at 5:51 and following here:

https://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/glp

It would have been great to see “hidden” citations there in the XML. Then the lexicon project team could have (I assume, using computer wizardry) made the published output show the author name only (without full citations)—achieving all the advantages described in the quotes above in not listing citations in the published output—but also making possible in the future the production of a longer lexicon containing citations as well, similar to what the project describes in their “weave” presentation of their underlying electronic database (note that this weave is not inserting citations under the senses of entries identified in the Cambridge lexicon, but rather the LSJ):

https://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/images/glp/theatronweave.png

In other words, what if they could use their hard work over two decades to produce two lexicons: the current one (medium-length), plus in the future (using that “weave” function to populate citations under each entry) a full-length lexicon?

If they’ve done the hard work reading all the citations to derive the different senses, I really hope they’ve captured the links between citations and senses somehow, to make that possible. It would be a shame if that information hasn’t been systematically captured over the two decades of work in a way that links directly into the project entries. There’s a shot in the introductory video where citations have been marked in pencil next to the entries, which gives me doubts (see 8:53 in the video linked above).

We’ll see I guess! I’m looking forward to it coming out and will definitely get it.

Cheers, Chad

23

I may have misunderstood how the citations have been handled but it seems that the authors of the dictionary have constructed a specific database which lists not only the LSJ citations but the other citations found by a program interrogating the corpus (TLG?). The LSJ slips will be available for the first time digitally and presumably the other citations too.

“This database has been in use since 2005, and has proved indispensible for consulting the texts as we wrote the lexicon entries. It would not have been possible to write the lexicon without it. It is much more than an archive of lexicographic ‘slips’: it is a semantically-organised digital library, in which the ‘weave’ pages constitute the first systematic display of LSJ ‘slips’. The database may therefore be of interest to other classical researchers, and we hope to make a draft more widely available.”

24

Hi, yes that’s right, and the question is whether they’ve linked the citations in that database to the different senses they’ve identified in their new lexicon.

Let’s wait and see: whatever comes out will be fantastic I’m sure and I’m looking forward to getting it.

Cheers, Chad

25

There are some JSTOR papers, and even a Youtube talk from a decade or two ago that go into some detail about the slip database. I haven’t looked into it for a couple years, so don’t remember any names offhand. However, Diggle’s statement in the interview that it will likely be made available is very good news. It’s the most interesting part of the project.

26

Further to the publication schedule of this dictionary, both Amazon and The Book Depository give a date of the 1st June 2020.

27

It’s the messiah – always imminent but never arriving.

28

Blackwell’s UK is now showing a 31st March 2021 publication date for this, priced at £26.40 in paperback, a single 1000-page volume: https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/9780521826808

However, Cambridge University’s Greek Lexicon page still mentions a two-volume, 1500-page edition to be published in late 2020: https://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/glp

I’m more than a little confused. Does anyone know anything more?

29

Perhaps it’s real, as there is a price, though the publication date is May 2021 according to CUP: https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/cambridge-greek-lexicon

30

That’ll be the US publication date. The UK will get it a bit earlier, as with the CGCG.

The plan for a two-volume edition must have been abandoned. I can’t say I’m sorry.

31

https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/cambridge-greek-lexicon?format=WX

Planned for March 2021. £30 -seems cheap! That’s for “multiple copy pack” so may refer to bulk orders.

32

Could the ‘multiple copy pack’ refer to this being a 2 volume work?

Here is a website that uses that terminology to refer to the 3 volumes of Lord of the Rings:

https://www.writersblockbookstore.com/book/9780395489321

33

I know of no lexicographical project that did not vastly underestimate the time required for completion. When will they ever learn?
In 2019 publication was advertised as being imminent, in fact not just imminent but “extremely imminent”—and just how does that differ from “imminent”? Cambridge now anticipates publication in 2021. Even in the publishing world that hardly counts as imminent. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Of course the really important thing will be the means of access provided to the database. It’s clear that not enough thought was given to this in the initial stages. It was dismaying to read in Diggle’s 2019 interview “We have, indeed, accumulated extensive files of information and comment, which we would like to make available, if the means can be found. Discussion is ongoing about this." (My italics.) Is this naivety the cause of the delay I wonder? It looks as if this is essentially a 19th-20th century project dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st. Diggle knows Greek as well as anyone alive today, but he’s always been a pen-and-paper man who’s lived with text more than with tech.

Beyond that, I stand by the criticisms I made back in 2016 (above)—among them the lexicon’s provincialism (starting with the pedestalizing of John Chadwick) and the lexicographical principles informing the project (which strike me as retrograde). But there’s no doubt that in many ways, thanks in large measure to Diggle’s discriminating judgment, it will be a significant improvement on the Middle Liddell, and in some ways even on LSJ. Still, even for a classicist it’s disturbing to read that “Our coverage of the Scriptures is limited to the Gospels,” as if 1st-century Greek is “late.”

34

They have a pre-order price, which usually means something (that they have a final page count, usually). This is going to be multi-volume. Usually “multi copy pack” means what it says, but the CUP site uses it for multi-volume works that are shipped as a bundle.

I really want to like this new emphasis on context and usage, but in practice I think that it may be eclipsed by lack of quotations.

Here’s my comparison of the first few entries from the interview page. I would have included Morwood too, but he just has “λύσσα ης, ἡ rage fury” and no entry for the others.

CGL

λυσσάς άδος, fem.adj.
1 (of Spirits of Vengeance) frenzied, raging mad E.; (of a woman or goddess) Tim.
2 (of a fate allotted to Herakles) of frenzied madness E.

>
> LSJ
>
> ```text
λυσσ-άς, άδος, ἡ, raging mad, Tim.Fr.3, APl.4.289; λ. μοίρᾳ E.HF1024 (lyr.).

Very similar, though CGL provides additional context in 1, and a new Euripides reference, E.HF887, where λυσσάδες ὠμοβρῶτες is actually an emendation by Wakefield for λύσσα δέ σ᾽ ὠμόβροτος.)

CGL

λυσσάω, also Att. λυττάω contr.vb. | dial.inf. λυσσῆν (Theoc.) |
1 (of persons, their minds or feelings, a lover’s soul) be in a
mad frenzy, be frantic S. Pl. Plb.; (of a soldier, in battle) go
berserk Hdt. || ptcpl.adj. (of desires) frenzied, frantic Pl.
2 (of dogs, wolves) be rabid Ar. Theoc.

>
> LSJ
>
> ```text
λυσσ-άω, Att. λυττάω, Ep. part. λυσσώων Man.1.244,
   AP5.265 (Paul. Sil.):—to be raging in battle,
   Hdt.9.71; cf. λύσσα init.

2.  rave, be mad, S.OT1258, Ant.492, Pl.R.329c,
   Epicur.Sent.Vat.11, Man., AP ll.cc., etc.; λ. πρὸς
   μεῖξιν Ps.-Phoc.214; ἔρωτες λυττῶντες Pl.R.586c: c.
   inf., desire madly to do, Hld.2.20.

II.  of dogs, suffer from rabies, Ar.Lys.298,
   Arist.HA604a6; of wolves, Theoc.4.11; of horses,
   Arist.HA604b13.

III.  causal, make mad, κἂν λελυσσήκῃ τινά (sc. τὰ
   δήγματα) Damocr. ap. Gal.13.821. (Hsch. has
   λύσσεται· μαίνεται.)

CGL drops the (α → ω) epic participle, but adds the (α → η) infinitive from Theocritus.

CGL removes the 1./2. distinction from LSJ I., and drops the LSJ III. (for attestation reasons, I assume).

CGL drops various references in 1. Dropping the Phocylides and Heliodorus is unfortunate, because they seem to demonstrate a different sort of usage. I guess that’s a problem with making a list of authors that you care about. We get the new information that Polybius uses the word. He uses it to qualify θυμός and ψυχή at various times, “their minds or feelings” in the CGL entry, I suppose. What reason could CGL have for dropping horses from the rabies entry?

CGL

λύσσημα ατος n. fit of frenzy (sent by the Erinyes) E.

>
> LSJ
>
> ```text
λύσσ-ημα, ατος, τό, fit of madness: in pl., ravings, εἴ μ’ ἐκφοβοῖεν μανιάσιν λυσσήμασιν E.Or.270.

We lose the Greek quote, of course.

If I were building a dictionary for myself at this point in my language journey, I would just have that one Morwood entry, some forms, and lots of relevant of Greek quotations for all of the related words. The world doesn’t need an LSJ replacement (or not so much). It needs a Greek dictionary targeted at learners that includes copious usage examples and is extremely light on glosses.

35

The Pre-0rder page for this is now up on amazon.com:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521826802/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Have gone ahead and placed my order.

36

In the Making Of video it’s kind of a thrill to see James Diggle, though I’m kind of puzzled he’s the editor of a Greek Lexicon, rather than an edition of a major corpus of Greek literature.

37

Not identifying in detail where one can find these uses, strikes me as a catastrophic choice.

So in the case (on the page released) of “lussema” there’s just “E” as reference, and the reader just has to accept the lexicon’s reading. It’s somewhere in Euripides.

Or, pick up LSJ and check lussema and find it’s Orestes 270, and check the spot oneself to see how the word works.

38

James Diggle is going to talk about the lexicon on March 15th at 6:30 pm London time. Information about the zoom meeting can be found here:

https://www.ccgs.csah.cam.ac.uk/events/greek-dialogues-online-cambridge-greek-lexicon-twenty-four-year-odyssey?fbclid=IwAR2jihGF7dYCHM6d30cyaIh_HBuzAQ1BPKXXkHTfnILy8hywRrJiiN8HBBY

39

Meeting takes place 2:30p EST (6:30p BST)

https://www.ccgs.csah.cam.ac.uk/events/greek-dialogues-online-cambridge-greek-lexicon-twenty-four-year-odyssey?fbclid=IwAR1ZJlN_DvyS0W3i1Jl8ELuNZhosJ4gu-oNh6wNj-4dWuF6SoDe4UWiO_cU

40

Thank you!

And you may wish to double-check your time zones. The link says 18:30pm GMT, which is an hour behind BST (that would be 7:30pm BST, I think), and we’re now in EDT, not EST. The errors cancel out, so 2:30pm EDT.