5 ms·

This is fantastic news, even if I never had any complaints about Liddell Scott. It’s interesting to note that while they stopped using euphemisms for words like

This is fantastic news, even if I never had any complaints about Liddell Scott. It’s interesting to note that while they stopped using euphemisms for words like “fuck”, they seemed to have removed references to homosexuality. Different times, different hangups.

microtherion 5y ago
The "gay" of "gay women" did not mean "homosexual" back then, that meaning is not documented even for men before the 1920s, and for women even later: https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/pgc2e4q https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/pgc2e4q What they meant was probably "promiscuous" or in some other form "leading an immoral lifestyle": https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/bzyd5jq https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/bzyd5jq That might make it a bit more plausible why this epithet was removed.
- vincent-manis 5y ago
  Or, given that 19th c. “gay” had a multiplicity of meanings, the intended meaning might have been something like “women who wore flashy clothes”.
cafard 5y ago
You are referring to the bit about "shoes worn by gay women"? I took that to mean "worn by courtesans".
- Grustaf 5y ago
  I suppose. But they also censored “worn by fops”…
  - phaemon 5y ago
    They didn't censor it, they fixed it. There is no evidence that this slipper was "worn by fops" other than the faulty Victorian dictionary that they were fixing.
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      Why would it be “faulty”? The paragraph starts out describing how “antiquated and offensive language” was removed.
      - phaemon 5y ago
        Why wouldn't it be? Old dictionaries are riddled with errors and mistranslations. βλαύτη is just a slipper. Not a slipper worn by fops. Not a slipper worn by lesbians. Not a slipper worn by aliens. Just a slipper. Why do you keep insisting that the Professors are wrong and that this "worn by fops" translation should be retained? Are you an expert in Ancient Greek translation and you're sure they have it wrong?
        Grustaf 5y ago
        The article gives βλαύτη as an example of a word whose definition was updated in order to remove offensive language. They're not saying the old definition was incorrect, there is no indication of that. I'm no expert, but I did study 2 years of full time Greek at uni. I don't specifically about βλαύτη, but I do know that berating effeminate or overly vain men would not be out of character for any Greek author.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        phaemon 5y ago
        The article was written by a journalist. The dictionary was written by the Professors. If they say that their definition is better I'm going with that above both a journalist and a second year student unless you provide something a little more compelling evidence-wise.
        Grustaf 5y ago
        Presumably they talked to the editors. I don’t think they opened up LSJ at random, compared an entry to the new version and concluded that the change was made for the sake of political correctness.

microtherion 5y ago

The "gay" of "gay women" did not mean "homosexual" back then, that meaning is not documented even for men before the 1920s, and for women even later: https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/pgc2e4q https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/pgc2e4q What they meant was probably "promiscuous" or in some other form "leading an immoral lifestyle": https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/bzyd5jq https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/bzyd5jq That might make it a bit more plausible why this epithet was removed.

vincent-manis 5y ago
Or, given that 19th c. “gay” had a multiplicity of meanings, the intended meaning might have been something like “women who wore flashy clothes”.

cafard 5y ago

You are referring to the bit about "shoes worn by gay women"? I took that to mean "worn by courtesans".

Grustaf 5y ago
I suppose. But they also censored “worn by fops”…
- phaemon 5y ago
  They didn't censor it, they fixed it. There is no evidence that this slipper was "worn by fops" other than the faulty Victorian dictionary that they were fixing.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    Why would it be “faulty”? The paragraph starts out describing how “antiquated and offensive language” was removed.
    - phaemon 5y ago
      Why wouldn't it be? Old dictionaries are riddled with errors and mistranslations. βλαύτη is just a slipper. Not a slipper worn by fops. Not a slipper worn by lesbians. Not a slipper worn by aliens. Just a slipper. Why do you keep insisting that the Professors are wrong and that this "worn by fops" translation should be retained? Are you an expert in Ancient Greek translation and you're sure they have it wrong?
      - Grustaf 5y ago
        The article gives βλαύτη as an example of a word whose definition was updated in order to remove offensive language. They're not saying the old definition was incorrect, there is no indication of that. I'm no expert, but I did study 2 years of full time Greek at uni. I don't specifically about βλαύτη, but I do know that berating effeminate or overly vain men would not be out of character for any Greek author.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        phaemon 5y ago
        The article was written by a journalist. The dictionary was written by the Professors. If they say that their definition is better I'm going with that above both a journalist and a second year student unless you provide something a little more compelling evidence-wise.
        Grustaf 5y ago
        Presumably they talked to the editors. I don’t think they opened up LSJ at random, compared an entry to the new version and concluded that the change was made for the sake of political correctness.