Monolingual Latin Dictionary

Latin Learning Latin
1

As many of you know, there is currently no monolingual Latin dictionary in print.

Among those out of print, there are the following:

Wagner is more of phrasebook than a dictionary, and it may not qualify as monolingual since all the editions I’ve seen include translations into another language, usually German or French.

Forcellini’s is simply too big to be really useful, and it’s being supplanted by the TLL which is even bigger.

Étienne’s work is also too big, and Gesner’s is borderline. Both are quite dated and do not compare very well to modern dictionaries.

If I consider the dictionaries I actually use on a daily basis, the one I use most frequently is the Elementary Lewis for classical authors and the abridged Gaffiot (de poche) for later authors. Both are portable and very handy.

So I was thinking of how it would be nice to have an intermediate monolingual dictionary, something that will fit within 1000 pages.

I’m wondering if it would be feasible to crowdsource the translation of the Elementary Lewis, which is in the public domain. Translations could be taken from the four monolingual dictionaries I mentioned, so volunteers wouldn’t need to be expert Latinists, only advanced enough to find appropriate Latin definitions in other dictionaries to replace the English ones. Citations from classical authors would remain untouched, as they are already in Latin, obviously.

Any thoughts?

2

Latin-English dictionaries such as the Elementary Lewis, or the big Lewis and Short or Oxford Latin Dictionary, for that matter, provide English equivalents for Latin words, not definitions. Translating such a dictionary into Latin would simply mean substituting the Latin head-words for the English equivalents, which would not be helpful at all. On the other hand, writing accurate definitions that capture the full range of meanings for each Latin head-word would be an enormous and expensive task, and a half-baked effort would be worse than useless–it would be misleading and unreliable.

And an accurate monolingual Latin dictionary wouldn’t be all that helpful anyway, because the user would have to put in the time and effort to unscramble the Latin. This wouldn’t be easy for common words–words that we never bother to look up in English monolingual dictionaries–and for more abstract words with a range of subtly differentiated meanings it would be even more difficult. A Latin-English dictionary that offers a range of English equivalents is easier to use and much more helpful and effective in learning Latin.

Just think about what definitions of words such as caput or eo, ire would look like. And words such as intellego or possum or contraho.

There’s a reason why the monolingual Latin dictionaries listed above are out-of-date–no one has attempted this for a long time.

3

Thanks for the reply. I nearly fell from my chair when I read this:

A Latin-English dictionary that offers a range of English equivalents is easier to use and much more helpful and effective in learning Latin.

Have you ever used Forcellini’s dictionary? Not so difficult when you’re actually proficient in Latin. As for being helpful and effective for leaning Latin, yes perhaps in the very early stages when no dictionary is really needed anyway, since Latin-English glossaries will do, but it should be the goal of any student to avoid his native language and to learn to think in Latin if he is to become truly proficient.

In fact, your response seems typical of the 19th century mindset that put an end to monolingual Latin dictionaries. Latin is seen as an archeological specimen that is to be studied from the exterior, in another language. This coincides with the century Latin was declared “dead”.

4

This project seems to have been abandoned.
Comenius: Lexicon atriale latino-latinum

Maybe you could revive it? It seems easier than translating the Elementary Lewis

5

I should have added that one to the other four mentioned.

Yes, it would be much easier, but Comenius’s dictionary is inadequate in so many ways.

I would sooner opt for Gesner’s lexicon, especially since part of the transcription has already been done:
http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/gesner.html

6

Could not agree more. Monolingual dictionaries have a totally different feel. Even though the existing ones for Latin, and even more so for Greek, are less than perfect, my experience is that they do indeed lead to deeper internalization and fluency. The best mono-lingual Homeric lexicon

http://www.amazon.com/Homeric-lexicon-Ancient-Greek-Lexicon/dp/1448610346

has many flaws and itself needs to be revised, but it is a wonderful resource for people who want to go beyond Grammar-Translation.

So, I want to add my moral support to your project.

7

The best option might be to put an existing monolingual Latin dictionary online in a text-searchable format, perhaps just the head words. I’d vote for Frocellini. I actually started looking into this project a few years ago, as I had access to the full text, but I had too much else going on and abandoned it.

Not as useful as a revised print edition, but I don’t think the will and talent is there for such an undertaking. Properly digitizing an existing text is much more feasible and still very useful.

8

The best option is already here:

Searchable Digitized Latin & Greek Lexica

9

Finding volunteers to type out all of Forcellini… We should have it in time for the completion of the TLL (ie. never). Besides it’s way too big to use as an everyday dictionary if you ask me. Too bad he never made an abridged edition.

Of all the existing dictionaries, Gesner’s 1749 revision of Stephanus is the best option. It could fit in a single volume if re-typeset.

10

I for one would really appreciate a small Latin-Latin dictionary.

However, I think Qimmik is probably right in supposing big advanced Latin-English dictionaries are often the quickest way to get help for advanced students. Though some of Q’s objections seem questionable.

Just think about what definitions of words such as caput or eo, ire would look like. And words such as intellego or possum or contraho.

All English-English dictionary makers (including those aimed at foreign learners) face the same problem.

And an accurate monolingual Latin dictionary wouldn’t be all that helpful anyway, because the user would have to put in the time and effort to unscramble the Latin.

Actually, I find I have to put in the time and effort to unscramble the Latin in the big English-Latin dictionaries anyway - with all those untranslated quotations. Fun, but time-consuming.

What I long for is a Latin-Latin dictionary at intermediate level.

What would that include? Well, just cull all the items from the vocab lists at the back of the plethora of intermediate textbooks past and present (including Oerberg). The general format would be: (1) simple definitions, (2) simple examples (mostly ‘made-up’ – but correct - Latin, using a restricted vocab), and (3) pictures.

The Comenius project was doomed from the start, because unlike the author’s other works the lexicon had passed its use-by date.

Monolingual dictionaries (in French, Spanish, etc) for young people might serve as a better model.

Direct Method enthusiasts like Chickering sometimes offered Latin-Latin vocab lists at the back of their books, as in Beginners’ Latin (1914).

A typical Chickering entry is:

caelum, caeli n. – (omnis locus super nos, in quo sol est)

I like the way ‘in quo’ sneaks unnoticed into the intermediate reader’s repertoire.

Chickering sometimes gives up:

cado, cadere, cecidi, casum – (rogâ magistrum)

Thus supporting Qimmik’s argument …

But I think there are always workarounds using examples.

Crowd sourcing? Well, if Wikipedia can do it … Actually, there’s Victionarium, with things like;

lācrim|a, -ae fem. (Nomen substantivum)

Gutta aquae ab oculo fluens.
Lacrimæ sunt arma feminarum.
in hāc lacrimārum valle

But it looks as if that too has been abandoned.

Naturally any such work would need a dedicated core of Latin censors each with the knowledge and acuity of a Qimmik to guarantee Latinity. Where would they be found?

So perhaps Qimmik’s right after all. Probably can’t be done. Pity!

Bene valete!
Int

11

My guess–and it’s no more than a guess–is that an Anglophone student, on looking up lacrima and finding gutta aquae ab oculo fluens, would probably translate this mentally to English “tear” anyway. More complicated definitions would take more time and effort, but in the end, I suspect, there would be a mental effort to find an English word corresponding the Latin definition. All of this effort, as I see it, would be a waste of time.

In my view, to develop fluency in reading Latin or Greek, it would be much better to read more Latin or Greek, looking up unknown words in a Latin-English dictionary, and then assimilating them. Personally, when I read Latin or Greek, or French or Russian for that matter, I don’t think (recognizing the limits of introspection) that I translate mentally or perform grammatical analysis unless and until I come to something I don’t understand. Then I try to understand what I’m reading by the despicable, unspeakably retrograde “grammar-translation” method, which usually serves me well in those places. I learn new vocabulary and I assimilate strange (to me) syntax this way.

So, frankly, I don’t really see any value to a monolingual Latin or Greek dictionary. I think there’s a reason why no one has compiled one for about 150-200 years, and I think the enormous effort that compiling an accurate one would require would be a total waste, unless someone does this as a kind of hobby, like model railroads or building miniature sailing ships in bottles or learning Klingon–or climbing Mt. Everest. To my mind, hobbies, especially those that are devoid of practical value, are never a waste of time. After all, that’s why I read Latin and Greek in the first place.

12

What I long for is a Latin-Latin dictionary at intermediate level.

What would that include? Well, just cull all the items from the vocab lists at the back of the plethora of intermediate textbooks past and present (including Oerberg). The general format would be: (1) simple definitions, (2) simple examples (mostly ‘made-up’ – but correct - Latin, using a restricted vocab), and (3) pictures.

If that’s what you’re looking for, take a look at Wagner’s lexicon. It fits the bill except for the pictures. The French/German gloss is optional and doesn’t really add much to the entry. In my opinion, it’s still too small to be really useful when reading classical authors.

13

Just out of curiosity, which dictionaries do all of you actually find most useful?

14

I keep the Elementary Lewis dictionary handy for simply finding the English equivalent of a word I don’t recognize. It lists a limited range of authors who use each word in a particular sense. For more precise and detailed information I go to Lewis and Short, either hard copy or online. Occasionally, I turn to the Oxford Latin Dictionary for the most precise and up-to-date information about words, but it’s big and awkward to use. Usually, Lewis and Short is adequate–it’s quite accurate and reliable, though the on-line version has many typographical errors.

For Greek, the intermediate Liddell is usually adequate; sometimes I use the big Liddell & Scott for more detailed information about usage, but the intermediate version is very useful. For Homer, Cunliffe, and for Thucydides, Betant’s Greek-Latin Lexicon Thucydideum.

15

I’d like to make it clear that I’m very much in favour of dual-language dictionaries, Loebs, interlinears, and translation in general as an aid to getting inside Latin. But I see my dream Intermediate Latin-Latin Dictionary as a recycling machine, exposing me repeatedly to the most BASIC vocabulary and structures of the target language.

I find the next best thing to reading the classics themselves is ‘immersing’ myself in those early 19th century editions of the Ad Usum Delphini Latin analyses and paraphrases of the works of Horace, Vergil & Co. After that, a bit of Erasmus, Galileo, Alice in Wonderland in Latin, etc. But the aim - and reward - is always reading the ancients themselves.

I know a young guy who speaks Latin as fluently as his own native language. I have no hope of emulating him, but he’s a reminder that there’s a spoken language lurking behind the printed words. I too would like to be able to ‘think’ in some form of simple Latin merely in order to feel more at ease with the original texts. So I’m certainly in favour of ‘immersion’ whenever possible (à la Oerberg) (or à la Markos).

Nesrad: Thanks for suggesting Wagner’s Lexicon Latinum. It does indeed come close (and I don’t mind the bits in French at all). But I would like a smaller pocket-sized version. Again, I’m not looking for a replacement for other dictionaries but rather a supplement.

My dream dictionary is unlikely to appear in my lifetime. But stranger things have happened. For example, there’s a Swedish-Latin Lexicon, published in 2009, with 28,000 Latin phrases (660 pages), nicely typeset, covering all modern Swedish topics. It’s not perfect but a goldmine when you’re stumped for a word. I can’t understand why it appeared in Sweden, a country that kicked Latin off the curriculum some fifty years ago. I’ve seen nothing like it anywhere else. So anything’s possible …

Bene valete!
Int

16

How did this come about, may I ask?

17

It’s my understanding that this was done for some Greek texts as well (Homer and Aristophanes,) but I haven’t been able to track these down. Does anyone know where they might be found?

18

Time travel, duh. (I think someone is exaggerating and it’s not me.)

19

I kid you not.

Don’t think he hasn’t been asked by others how he did it.

All I can say is that he’s that kind of guy. He set himself to do it and did it. Among other things, I believe he recited Plautus to himself until he knew it inside out and thus acquired the ‘spoken Latin’ habit.

Why the surprise/disbelief? We all know there are others out there who speak Latin fluently. Think Miraglia, Stroh.

Guess I’ll repeat what I said last time: anything’s possible.

Bene valete!
Int

20

How do you know this, Interaxus? Who is there to say how idiomatic his speech is when there are no native Latin speakers around to adjudicate the matter for us? Speed of response and absence of hesitation are in themselves unreliable indicators of fluency; I know plenty of non-native speakers of my own language who can speak it rapidly and unhesitantly, but they’re far from a native level of fluency, and they even have the advantage of native speakers to learn from, which the guy you know doesn’t.