This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there a PD or a GFDL compatible version of this Lexicon somewhere online? +MATIA ☎ 18:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Why no date for the original publication of the Lexicon? Doesn't appear in this article or articles on any of the three editors.
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) Seadowns ( talk)
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)
I remember reading in the TLS in about 1990 that a replacement would require something like 50 years' work. Since then I have done a Classics degree and have heard estimates of the number of errors in LSJ and it's in the tens of thousands. Fuficius Fango ( talk) 07:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Note that Henry George Liddell did, in fact, pronounce his last name with a stress on the FIRST syllable (see "The Annotated Alice") 58.173.43.62 ( talk) 22:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 [1]. 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)
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)
If I understand correctly, "α^" is a short alpha, and "α_" is a long alpha, correct? — kwami ( talk) 13:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there a PD or a GFDL compatible version of this Lexicon somewhere online? +MATIA ☎ 18:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Why no date for the original publication of the Lexicon? Doesn't appear in this article or articles on any of the three editors.
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) Seadowns ( talk)
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)
I remember reading in the TLS in about 1990 that a replacement would require something like 50 years' work. Since then I have done a Classics degree and have heard estimates of the number of errors in LSJ and it's in the tens of thousands. Fuficius Fango ( talk) 07:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Note that Henry George Liddell did, in fact, pronounce his last name with a stress on the FIRST syllable (see "The Annotated Alice") 58.173.43.62 ( talk) 22:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 [1]. 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)
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)
If I understand correctly, "α^" is a short alpha, and "α_" is a long alpha, correct? — kwami ( talk) 13:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)