Talk:A Greek–English Lexicon

message: The touches of whimsy in this article could well be dispensed with, especially the verses, which are not clerihews and are poor of their kind.  10:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 2017

message: In the last few decades this ancient monument(as defined by Prof Chadwick of Cambridge) was criticized for its horrible archaic layout, archaic English and misleading meanings of certain words(most faults are mentioned by Chadwick in his book "lexicographica graeca"). A superior successor is being written in Cambridge, hence a section on these "recent" developments should be added.Beatus 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no plan to create a superior replacement for LSJ.  The project in Cambridge, while very important, only plans to produce a lexicon of intermediate size.  Wareh 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have heard though that a full Greek lexicon into Spanish is coming some time.  My informant is a respected Cambridge Academic, but I have no up to date information; there is some background at http://www.filol.csic.es/dge/bib/science.htm, published in 1986 apparently. John Wheater (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article already has a redlink to Diccionario Griego-Español (since DGE is based on LSJ and in Spanish, so it's a replacement for LSJ in only some senses); someone should take the available information (the top English page is here; the vols. already published go up to ) and make an article on this notable project.  Wareh (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an entry about the work titled "The Greek-Spanish Dictionary (DGE)." I will disambiguate the link in this entry.--212.15.182.79 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Recent criticism"

message: Contrary to the text here, I think there are actually more entries in the Abridged (Little) than the Intermediate (Middle).  Roughly 60,000 in Little,   50,000 in Middle.   Middle is, though, as stated, vastly superior in article quality, with authors named though not cited in detail.  We could also mebbe mention the print quality:  a 1945 Middle is an absolute joy compared to the current Little edition.  I'll maybe edit in these senses, but I'd like better entry-count data and comment from an experienced classicist.  Any ideas? John Wheater (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have entry counts, but it is certainly true that the words with entries in Intermediate make up a significantly larger superset of the words treated in Little.  Perhaps (I will remain dubious until I see hard information) the greater number of cross-reference lemmata in Little outnumber these additional words, but if so, let's be sure the article doesn't acquire text misleadingly suggesting there is any word treated in Little that's not in Intermediate, since this is false & backwards.  What you say about variable print quality is quite true, but we need a reliable source.  Wareh (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Condensed editions

message: It should be clear that Henry Stuart-Jones was not involved in the first editions of the so-called "LSJ". This abbreviation should of course not be used for those editions. --Henri de Solages (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authors 

message: It's a complete disaster -- You have to use a transcription based on the 1993 Windows 3.1 Symbol font (so "q"=θ and similar nonsense) and half the words show up as "[unavailable]" or display "Sorry, no information was found for poluqe/atos" etc. when you try to click on them...  Is there any other way of accessing the contents of the full Liddell and Scott online? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I routinely use the Archimedes Project at harvard.edu (see external links), but you may not like the Beta Code any better, as it expects more precision.  Balancing this, it lets you browse to the adjacent entries.  (Perseus actually doesn't care if you leave accents off; the missing πολυθέατος is a glitch omission, and not too important of one - it seems Perseus 4.0 otherwise is working well.)  Archimedes has its lapses too; often when there are two lemmata spelled the same way (#1 and #2), one of them is missing.  I've never used Chicago (see external links), but it accepts partial accentless strings in Unicode and has no trouble with polutheatos, though you have to go through an extra click even if there is a single unique search result.  Wareh (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is that it took me a dozen tries to get everything "correct" for searching for words beginning in polyth-, and when I finally did so, I was far from impressed with the usefulness of the results, considering how many "unavailable" and "Sorry, no information was found" messages there were.  I'm really not used to thinking in terms of the 1993 Windows 3.1 Symbol font (which was regarded as a somewhat poor method for writing Greek text even back in 1993), and it's not very user-friendly to require people use it.  I don't see what was wrong with the old Perseus that it had to be changed.  However, thanks for the info about the overall situation (such as it is...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New Perseus website search interface

message: Would it be worth including a section on the cultural significance of LS(J)?  Its initial publication was considered something of a heroic achievement and was commemorated in, affectionately mocking, verse by no less a light than Thomas Hardy.  It also appears prominently in Donna Tart's novel 'A Secret History', in which it is brandished as the defining symbol of the classicist (which in many ways rings true).BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. The caveat is this: distinguish between a straight reception/response/legacy section ("Liddell & Scott was mentioned in... and also appears in...where one character remarks that..."), which I think can simply be added in ad lib., and interpretive statements (LSJ has an emblematic significance, it is a defining example of a cultural trend, etc.), which you shouldn't simply put forth without reliable sources backing up the statements. Cheers, Wareh (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  LSJ as a cultural symbol 

message: I temporarily have the ninth edition of the dictionary (1940, reprinted 1977) and the title looks hyphenated to me, for both the main dictionary and the supplement (1968, reprinted 1977) (bound together). I don't see an en-dash. This article's title, however, uses an en-dash, with the hyphenated form only used for a redirect to this article. An en-dash would normally be right for titles like this one, but it seems to be incorrect for this particular pair of publication titles. The two characters can be distinguished in that, within a given body text font, an en-dash is about the width of the letter "n" (an em-dash is about the width of the letter "m" or longer) while the hyphen is a lot shorter than either. Did this typography vary between editions? Or should the article be moved to the hyphenated form, leaving the en-dashed form as a redirect? Nick Levinson (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Publishers aren't very consistent.  We generally follow our own conventions in such matters.  The fact that we're quoting isn't relevant, as we adjust such things in quotations too.  — kwami (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  article title, hyphen, and page move 

message: If I understand correctly, "α^" is a short alpha, and "α_" is a long alpha, correct?  — kwami (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be right, yes. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perseus transcription 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on A Greek–English Lexicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214091744/http://www.goldibex.com:80/lexiphanes to http://www.goldibex.com/lexiphanes
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Good afternoon, 
i have modifed the paragraph titled "Translations", where I added the work of French glottologist Didier Fontain.
It seems to be a free and useful source, for a quick translation, with scientific limitations.
Even if it has been written in English, I think that it has not to be categorized in the paragraph "Condensed editions" because it is has 725-pages and it is based on 1940 Lidell-Scott edition.
The same website (aeropage.org) also publishes a French dictionary for the New Testament. It ia based on the Lidell-Scott, and more specific Greek-English Lexicon.
It is available in an electronic format, and may be added in the paragraph "Electronic editions".Micheledisaverio (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldid 853695749- Categorization for the work "Greek and English Lexicon with a Revised Supplement. A simplified edition[1" 

message: This article lacks citations, the first three sections notably lack any citations at all. I have added tags to indicate problems.--The Elysian Vector Fields 07:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of citations 

message: The link to the official website doesn't work.
This is Internet Archive's PDF of the 18th edition of 1880. You can set bookmarks to the start of entries for each letter, search for an English equivalent and add comments. https://archive.org/details/lexiconabridgedf1880lidd/page/n4
71.178.191.144 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  link rot; later edition 

message: The note begins "See the verse quoted below", but no such verse is quoted. I think this is a leftover from an earlier version of this article, which included several pieces of doggerel regarding the work. Not sure if the right thing is just to delete the reference or to rescue the poem from the edit history (and maybe hide it in the note). 207.180.169.36 (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangling reference, citation 1