Whiteautoclave has the cover of OLD has his avatar. I’m being urged to buy this by my instructuctor in a Terence course that I’m taking online but I’m balking. Who here own’'s it? What do they think of it? Through what period do it’s entries extend. Gratias promutuas mittam.
Related: What’s the deepest searchable online dictionary?
Ken
It is very good. The definitions are very clear. Covers Classical Latin until 2 century AD.
If you cannot find a good price online let me know.
Perseus has Lewis and Short. I doubt there is anything “deeper” than that online.
I’m told by people who should know that it’s worth every penny, as good dictionaries tend to be, for language is at the heart of Classics.
Thanks for the snappy response. But what about the other portion of my question? Would OLD include “neolatin” usages. When was it last updated?
Neolatin seems unlikely. But there’s a vatican dictionary if that’s what you want.
The OLD was completed in 1982. Don’t know if it’s been updated.
There’ll be plenty of copies in libraries round here if you want me to find out more.
There’ll be plenty of copies in libraries round here if you want me to find out more.
Thanks for the offer, friend, but no need to do anything. Besides Deses already answered the the question about what OLD covers - I just hadn’t seen his response when I asked the second time (severe add, you know).
About the vatican dictionary: That would be something like index verborom larinorum recentiorm or some such. Costs hundreds of dollars!
The reason I queried about online materials is that I get on only poorly with hard copies, finding them just to inconvenient and time consuming to use; which is why I like Whitaker’s Words program - it’s fast. It has only two downsides. First, it gives no examples of usage; second, as with OLD, it’s entries don’t extend past the classical period.
And all of this taken together is why I so strongly favor the idea of textkit hosting a searchable version of that large Jesuit work (Universae Phraesiologiae Corpus) published in the 19th century that some of us were talking about and downloading a while back.
Regards to all. Kynetus Vasintoniensis
I own it, and it is invaluable for me as a reference. Words are given with all their meanings, common idioms, unusual forms, and the most up to date etymologies. Many examples of usages in each meaning are given (without translations) for each definition and sub-definition of every word. My greatest complaint is that there is no English to Latin section, a luxury to which I have become accustomed with online dictionaries. It is a very large and expensive book, but it is well worth buying if you plan on doing any advanced studies in Latin. There is of course no Neo-Latin in the book because it only includes Classical vocabulary.
“whiteautoclave” - that is an adorable slip-up if you did that by accident 
“whiteautoclave” - that is an adorable slip-up if you did that by accident
accidental slip-up! severe ADD, you know.
The OLD is a sine qua non: good prices exist online for the first 4 or 6 (of 8 ) fascicles, as it was originally published. The cheapest hardback version is somewhere around £105, i.e. $185 or so.
It has not the force to displace the use of L&S, mostly owing to its earlier point of truncation, authors after the second cent. A.D. being excluded save a few legal writers. Frank Goodyear, the late and great, wrote a series of vehemently negative reviews about a number of points with a lexicographical spite not seen since Housman’s rage against the TLL.
It has the advantage of following the semantic groupings pioneered by the OED, although in some of the longer entries this can bring excessively stratified results. I have an ever-building list of misprints alongside the appended corrigenda. For instance, on a recently mooted topic, the OLD would have us believe that marium is the ‘usual’ gen.pl. of mare; Benissimus asserted that this form does not occur. OLD implies that it does but gives no instance. Yet it is well known, thanks to Priscian, that Naevius employed the contracted gen.pl. marum in his Saturnians; marium would naturally be avoided since it overlaps with the gen.pl. of maris (save quantity) as well as the proper name Marium. Nevertheless, marium <mare is found in Fronto, but that information is not to be found in books.
A major disadvantage with the OLD is that, presumably for consistency’s sake, the texts used at the beginning of the project were kept throughout its long gestation. Thus Mynors’ Catullus and Virgil texts were not at all utilised, nor a thoroughly good Lucretian text. For the fragmentary poets the situation is yet worse.
Nonetheless this is, faute de mieux, what the serious Latin scholar must have.
~D
I wouldn’t mind seeing a context in which the Acc. of Marius can be bona fide mistaken for marium or vice versa.
marium would naturally be avoided since it overlaps with the gen.pl. of maris (save quantity) as well as the proper name Marium.
Nunc autem miror num quae vidimus supra verba Albus Clavus scripserit quia idem ei accidit quod mihi? Cum quaesitro Googlio usus sum ut cognoscerem verum de re quae agitatur multa exemplaria nominis “Marii” data in casu accusativo inveni. Nonne scis, amice, generationibus hominum priscorum nulla erant quaesitra?
DECREVITSVLLAMRECTOREMTERRARVMMARIVMQVEESSE, uel sim., but your point is of course a fair and obvious one.
~D
Does not work for me, frankly. 
I suppose, this could be an interesting though meaningless challenge, to come up with a plausible sentence that could create such a confusion.
Albo Clavo spd Kynetus Vasintoniensis
but your point is of course a fair and obvious one.
Cum plus quam homo unus hoc in filo versetur, mihi perdificile est scire cui sententiam quae supra stat scripsisti.
Vale iuvenis Brittanice
Admodum excitatus, mi albe, eram quom scriberem illa verba. Sic accidit ut neglexerim tibi agere bene meritas grates pro omnibus quae explanisti de dictionario illo. Quas nunc perlibenter persolvo. Vale. ~K