>X-Sender: mauros@gpo.iol.ie
>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:41:55 +0100
>To: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
>From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros@iol.ie>
>Subject: From "The Times" June 10
>Cc: kraft@CCAT.SAS.UPENN.EDU, EHOBBS@WELLESLEY.EDU
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Status:
>
>I thought you might be interested in this piece
>
>Maurice
>
>John Chadwick says classical scholarship
> needs a new lexicon
>
> All Greek to us harmless
> drudges
> No one - except a lexicographer - actually
> reads a dictionary. We all have them to
> hand as required, but we use them as tools,
> to solve whatever linguistic problems we
> meet. Consequently, no one gives much
> thought to the process of making them.
>
> For the most part we are well served, at
> least in English, by our dictionaries. We
> may complain that they are not up-to-date
> with the latest expressions, or we might find
> they omit uses and words now obsolete, so
> that we are confused when we try to read
> Elizabethan literature. But English scholars
> are well provided with the tools they need.
>
> This is not true of other languages. So long
> as we are dealing with a modern language,
> it is always, at least in theory, possible to
> go to a native speaker and ask him to
> explain how a word is used. Even this may
> not be simple, for the native speaker may
> know what he should say, but cannot explain
> why one form is correct and another not.
>
> However, no one still speaks ancient
> languages. They may, as Greek does, live on
> in an altered form; but its speakers cannot
> be used as informants on a form of the
> language that has not been spoken for 2,000
> years. So how do we set about making a
> dictionary of such a language?
>
> Essentially, there are two ways: either you
> must copy what other dictionaries have
> done, selecting and combining their material
> to suit your own purpose; or you must
> collect a large number of examples of the
> word being studied from the ancient texts,
> and from them educe the ways in which the
> word was used. The first method is much
> easier and this is what almost all makers of
> dictionaries do. The second method
> requires far more time and work; but if
> intelligently done, its results are much more
> reliable.
>
> Classical scholars have for generations
> relied on a long tradition. When I was at
> school we used a Latin dictionary first
> published in 1879, which, according to its
> title page was "founded on Andrew's
> edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary,
> revised, enlarged and in great part rewritten
> by C.T. Lewis and C. Short". In 1946 I was
> invited to join the team that was working
> under the late J.M. Wyllie on a project for a
> completely new dictionary, to be called The
> Oxford Latin Dictionary. This was
> eventually completed under the editorship
> of P. Glare in 1982. We made it a rule
> never to consult earlier dictionaries until
> we had drafted our own account of the
> word. Naturally the book repeated much
> already found in older ones, but in many
> cases a fresh approach cut through the tangle
> of verbiage and clarified the usage of the
> word, and in not a few cases ancient errors
> were corrected. One of Wyllie's dicta was
> "the new dictionary will contain errors, but
> they will be our own, not other people's".
>
> Likewise my schooldays were dominated by
> the towering figures of Liddell and Scott,
> the authors of the largest Greek Lexicon of
> their time. This too was founded on a
> German original, but had been so much
> enlarged and improved in the course of
> eight editions that it was really a new work
> and is deservedly famous. Such was its
> reputation that it seemed sacrilege to dare to
> improve on it. Yet Greek studies did not
> stand still, and the 20th century saw
> progress in many fields that affected our
> understanding of the vocabulary. A ninth
> edition was prepared by two eminent
> Oxford scholars, who made no attempt to
> rewrite the Lexicon, but were content to add
> new words and meanings. Their work has
> now been continued by new Supplements,
> but the basic framework remains unchanged.
> I have found cases where the structure of an
> article can be shown to reproduce the
> definitions or synonyms offered by an
> ancient lexicographer. Yet there is no good
> reason to prefer to modern scholarship the
> opinions of a scholar writing a millennium
> after the time of Homer.
>
> When I reached this conclusion I could not
> at first see what might be done, but I
> advocated a revision (and that means in
> places a reworking) of the Intermediate
> Greek Lexicon, the abridged version used
> by all our students. To my surprise, this
> proved popular among teachers of Greek,
> and I was encouraged to see if I could raise
> the funds needed to pay an editor. I should
> have been tempted to offer to do the job
> myself, if my age did not disqualify me. We
> have now received promises of grants
> sufficient to enable the project to start, and
> we have an editor who is well-equipped to
> work on this, having been chief assistant on
> the last Supplement to the main Lexicon.
> More funding will still be needed, but we
> feel confident that this will be forthcoming.
>
> But what of the major Lexicon? I believe the
> wholesale rewriting that is needed would
> require the services of a large staff and
> perhaps 50 years. The expense would be
> prohibitive. Moreover, the day of the huge
> multivolume dictionary is over. Increasingly
> such books will be published in electronic
> form. This has the enormous advantage that
> the lexicographer no longer needs to
> abbreviate and compress his material to
> make it publishable. An immense text can be
> flagged and indexed so that the user can
> quickly find what he needs. Computers will
> never reduce the need for intelligent
> lexicographers, but they can lessen their
> labour and offer new possibilities for users.
> I have no doubt the next 30 years will see
> major changes in this field; all we can hope
> now is to attempt some small-scale and
> piecemeal improvements. At least classical
> studies are not dead, but moving forwards at
> an increasing pace.
>
> The author is Emeritus Reader in Classics,
> University of Cambridge.
>
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
--- b-greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek To post a message to the list, mailto:b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, mailto:subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To unsubscribe, mailto:unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu?subject=[grammateus@sunsite.unc.edu]