3,277,301
edits
LSJ:About: Difference between revisions
From LSJ
m
→Improvement
m (→Improvement) |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Apart from making accessible a variety of sources, the objective is to '''massively improve''' upon them. In what way you may ask? | Apart from making accessible a variety of sources, the objective is to '''massively improve''' upon them. In what way you may ask? | ||
# Many of the works are old<ref>For example LSJ for English, Pape for German, Bailly for French, and Dvoretsky for Russian</ref> and written in '''antiquated language''' (i.e. '''shew''' instead of '''show'''; '''to-morrow''' instead of '''tomorrow'''; '''bee-master''' instead of '''beekeeper'''; '''leathern''' instead of '''leather'''; '''mediciner''' instead of '''doctor'''; see the paper on [[#Rev.28er.7Ci.29sing_the_LSJ|LSJ]] below for more) which needs to be brought up to date. For a spicy detail on this one, most of the old works use Latin euphemisms for "naughty" words. I.e. any word signifying the privy parts of the human anatomy would be translated as ''pudendum'' (''[[pudenda muliebria|muliebre]]'' or ''virile''); an [[erection]] would be ''erectio penis''; a '''fart''' would be described as ''crepitus ventris''; [[βινητιάω]] (be gagging for sex) as ''coïre cupio''. You skipped Latin class at school? Not the lexicographer's problem... And while we are at it, let's take the example of [[καταδακτυλίζω]], translated as "'''feel with the finger'''" with the comment "'''sens. obsc'''.", that is vulgar language, can you come up with something more up to date, truly "obscene" and less longwinded? What about [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fingerbang fingerbang]? | # Many of the works are old<ref>For example LSJ for English, Pape for German, Bailly for French, and Dvoretsky for Russian</ref> and written in '''antiquated language''' (i.e. '''shew''' instead of '''show'''; '''to-morrow''' instead of '''tomorrow'''; '''bee-master''' instead of '''beekeeper'''; '''leathern''' instead of '''leather'''; '''mediciner''' instead of '''doctor'''; see the paper on [[#Rev.28er.7Ci.29sing_the_LSJ|LSJ]] below for more) which needs to be brought up to date. For a spicy detail on this one, most of the old works use Latin euphemisms for "naughty" words. I.e. any word signifying the privy parts of the human anatomy would be translated as ''pudendum'' (''[[pudenda muliebria|muliebre]]'' or ''virile''); an [[erection]] would be ''erectio penis''; a '''fart''' would be described as ''crepitus ventris''; [[βινητιάω]] (be gagging for sex) as ''coïre cupio''. You skipped Latin class at school? Not the lexicographer's problem... And while we are at it, let's take the example of [[καταδακτυλίζω]], translated as "'''feel with the finger'''" with the comment "'''sens. obsc'''.", that is vulgar language, can you come up with something more up to date, truly "obscene" and less longwinded? What about [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fingerbang fingerbang]? | ||
# The original '''design for a book format''', with all the associated '''conventions, abbreviations, references''' (i.e. ''v. sq.'' or ''v. foreg.'', ''q.v.'', ''qq.v.'' which do not point to the specific entries in a non-book format as the reader is not accessing a book page) and (lexical, grammatical, syntactic) ambiguities that come with it need to be adapted, abbreviations expanded, ambiguities resolved with extra context, etc. | # The original '''design for a book format''', with all the associated '''conventions, abbreviations, references''' (i.e. ''v. sq.'' or ''v. foreg.'', ''q.v.''<ref>Do we still need this if the word referred to is linked?</ref>, ''qq.v.'' which do not point to the specific entries in a non-book format as the reader is not accessing a book page) and (lexical, grammatical, syntactic) ambiguities that come with it need to be adapted, abbreviations expanded, ambiguities resolved with extra context, etc. | ||
# Specific works, and I am talking about you [[#Rev.28er.7Ci.29sing_the_LSJ|LSJ]], despite having a '''wealth of examples''', '''use abbreviated forms''' and '''lack translations''' (of most examples) or translations are '''partial'''. Often, not only examples, but main entries lack translations, for example in the LSJ entry [[ὀρσιπετής]] we have, "ὑψοῦ πετόμενος, Hsch." instead of the actual translation which would be "high-flying". Not so friendly for users who are not advanced in Greek. | # Specific works, and I am talking about you [[#Rev.28er.7Ci.29sing_the_LSJ|LSJ]], despite having a '''wealth of examples''', '''use abbreviated forms''' and '''lack translations''' (of most examples) or translations are '''partial'''. Often, not only examples, but main entries lack translations, for example in the LSJ entry [[ὀρσιπετής]] we have, "ὑψοῦ πετόμενος, Hsch." instead of the actual translation which would be "high-flying". Not so friendly for users who are not advanced in Greek. | ||
# They contain '''numerous errors''': not only [[#Rev.28er.7Ci.29sing_the_LSJ|LSJ]] which has the added burden of OCR-related errors of the original, hardly-ever-proofread Perseus version<ref>You can even find multiple errors that probably resulted from regexes gone wrong like in the entry "[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*a%3Aentry+group%3D233%3Aentry%3Da%29pa%2Fterqe ἀπάτερθε]: before a vowel '''ἀπάσχολ'''-θεν" (!!!) (instead of '''ἀπάτερθεν''')</ref>, and [[Index:WoodhouseErrata|Woodhouse]], who has an issue, among other things, with getting his accents right ([[Media:woodhouse_1000.jpg|Αἴσχυλος]] instead of [[Αἰσχύλος]]<ref>Yes, I know it is listed as an alternative form in ''DGE'' but by no means should it be the main nor the only one listed in a dictionary</ref>? C'mon now, you can do better than that, the original does not imitate the stress of the translation), but also major '''modern lexicographical works''' are not exempt from errors<ref>As [https://www.translatum.gr/forum/index.php?topic=338206.0 Samuel Johnson said]: "Every other author may aspire to praise; the lexicographer can only hope to escape reproach, and even this negative recompense has been yet granted to very few."</ref>, see for example some [https://www.translatum.gr/forum/index.php?topic=1001469.0 DGE] and [https://www.translatum.gr/forum/index.php?topic=464129.msg1256121#msg1256121 Brill] issues). | # They contain '''numerous errors''': not only [[#Rev.28er.7Ci.29sing_the_LSJ|LSJ]] which has the added burden of OCR-related errors of the original, hardly-ever-proofread Perseus version<ref>You can even find multiple errors that probably resulted from regexes gone wrong like in the entry "[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*a%3Aentry+group%3D233%3Aentry%3Da%29pa%2Fterqe ἀπάτερθε]: before a vowel '''ἀπάσχολ'''-θεν" (!!!) (instead of '''ἀπάτερθεν''')</ref>, and [[Index:WoodhouseErrata|Woodhouse]], who has an issue, among other things, with getting his accents right ([[Media:woodhouse_1000.jpg|Αἴσχυλος]] instead of [[Αἰσχύλος]]<ref>Yes, I know it is listed as an alternative form in ''DGE'' but by no means should it be the main nor the only one listed in a dictionary</ref>? C'mon now, you can do better than that, the original does not imitate the stress of the translation), but also major '''modern lexicographical works''' are not exempt from errors<ref>As [https://www.translatum.gr/forum/index.php?topic=338206.0 Samuel Johnson said]: "Every other author may aspire to praise; the lexicographer can only hope to escape reproach, and even this negative recompense has been yet granted to very few."</ref>, see for example some [https://www.translatum.gr/forum/index.php?topic=1001469.0 DGE] and [https://www.translatum.gr/forum/index.php?topic=464129.msg1256121#msg1256121 Brill] issues). | ||
