Talk:A Latin Dictionary
|WikiProject Reference works||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Books||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Latin||(Rated Start-class)|
I've just added a POV tag, because much of this article appears bent on demonstrating the superiority of the Liddel Scott dictionary over Lewis and Short. If it is necessary to mention its apparent superiority, the article should probably include some references for this fact, or some evidence beyond the fact that the former has been revised more often. Torgo 04:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why the author thinks that comparisons with the LSJ Greek Lexicon are inevitable. Lewis and Short is a Latin dictionary used by those who need a less chronologically-restrictive lexicon of Latin words, e.g. medievalists. The LSJ is a Greek dictionary; while this may provide some etymological benefit to someone looking up a problematic word, it serves no comparable function that allows it to be qualitatively better or worse than the L&S for the function that the latter provides. I agree with the POV moderation, and would recommend eliminating the entire section, perhaps replacing it with a discussion of the relative uses of the OLD, L&S, DuCange, Niermeyer, and the like. -Sean wwww.larkvi.com/about.php 126.96.36.199 19:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Editing. Tinalles 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thoroughly reworked. What a wonderful way to waste time and still feel productive! Now, back to that paper that ain't writing itself ... -- Tinalles 06:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Copyright of Lewis & Short?
"whereas, since L&S has not been revised since 1879, its text is presumably out of copyright."
What about the copyright notice on the page following the title page of L&S? 'All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced' etc.