in a Latin text I am transcribing there are various Greek words. I use TypeGreek.com to enter the Greek letters, but some of the words give me trouble (I do not know any Greek) so that I would appreciate your help. I uploaded a jpg-file (235 kb, will be deleted end of October) with snippets of the original text to my web-site. The numbers below refer to the numbered snippets in the image.
Example from entry “Acroama”: The capital Greek letters in the text all have the diacritics on the right. TypeGreek, however, puts the diacritics on the left. Does that matter? Is Ἀκρόαμα okay?
Example from entry “Clazomenae”: is the transliteration of the 7th letter in the Greek word as “κλάζεσθαι” correct? Is κλάζεσθαι correct?
Example from entry “Clinopales”: is the first Greek word really correct? Should not the last two letters be switched so that it says κλίυη and πάλη?
Example from entry “Devirginatus”: are these two Greek words or a single one? And what could the last letter of the first one be? I cannot decipher it.
Example from entry “Lectica”: is not there a letter missing in this word? Is έξάφορον really correct?
Example from entry “Psecas”: is the third letter a kappa or something else? Is ψέκαζειν really correct?
Thank you for your help. I am afraid, it’s all Greek to me (sorry for the pun).
Since I have already transcribed the complete text, I can now create a draft version for proofreading. Thanks also for the link to the scan of the 1826-edition of the “Glossarium Eroticus Linguae Latinae”. It prevented me from a blunder concerning the authorship (or rather editorship). I thought that Carolus Rambach was the real one. But the Google-entry for the scan of the French edition (with the slightly different title from the Rambach-edition which is named “Thesaurus Eroticus Linguae Latinae”) lists Pierre-Emmanuel Pierrugues as the editor.
At first I was unsure whether either of these is the correct one. But then I found a hint in a German book about the Rambach-edition on Google-books: “Soll nur ein mit veränd. Namen des Hrsgeb. veranstalt. Wiederdruck des von Pierhugues (Paris 1826) hrsg. Werkes sein.” This proves that the Rambach-edition is merely a reprint. Naughty boy, considering that there is no hint in the reprint concerning the French edition!
PS: as for how to deal with errors in the text. When creating transcriptions I stick to the guidelines of Project Gutenberg. I change mere typos (adding transcriber’s notes when necessary), formatting if necessary, but I leave other stuff as it is (in some cases adding transcriber’s notes to point to what is correct). Ideally, the original edition (minus typos) should be retrievable once all alterations indicated by the Transcriber’s Notes have been reversed.
