5 ms·

But how accurate is it? Is it diverse and raunchy just for the sake of it? I’ll wait for an actual academic review from somebody who has been in the field for a

But how accurate is it? Is it diverse and raunchy just for the sake of it? I’ll wait for an actual academic review from somebody who has been in the field for at least 40 years.

sorokod 5y ago
The article mentions James Diggle [1] and Robin Osborne [2] as some of the authors. Have you got any specific concerns regarding these two gentlemen? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Diggle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Diggle [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Osborne https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Osborne
- OldGoodNewBad 5y ago
  >some of I’ll wait for a proper academic book review. Anyway this new book that’s being promoted has a paltry number of entries compared to Liddell. Newer is often not better.
  - cafard 5y ago
    Doesn't it aim to compete with the abridged version? At this point, I'm being asked to subscribe, so I won't
    - OldGoodNewBad 5y ago
      I dunno. Does it? You seem to know…
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Second paragraph: > The late scholar John Chadwick first came up with the idea to update HG Liddell and Robert Scott’s 1889 dictionary, the Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, in 1997. An abridged version of a lexicon published in 1843, the Liddell and Scott had never been revised, and is packed with antiquated terms and modestly Victorian translations of the more colourful ancient Greek words. Despite this, it remains the most commonly used reference work for students in English schools and universities.
Jiocus 5y ago
More accurate than it's predecessor, which seem to have been engaged in willfully obscuring the content matter – not exactly a success for a dictionary of any pedigree. I don't believe they've been more raunchy or diverse than the ancient greeks themselves were.
- OldGoodNewBad 5y ago
  >More accurate This is a claim which still remains to be reviewed by the proper authorities.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Seems it was written by pretty much the proper authorities.

But how accurate is it? Is it diverse and raunchy just for the sake of it? I’ll wait for an actual academic review from somebody who has been in the field for at least 40 years.

sorokod 5y ago

The article mentions James Diggle [1] and Robin Osborne [2] as some of the authors. Have you got any specific concerns regarding these two gentlemen? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Diggle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Diggle [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Osborne https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Osborne

OldGoodNewBad 5y ago
>some of I’ll wait for a proper academic book review. Anyway this new book that’s being promoted has a paltry number of entries compared to Liddell. Newer is often not better.
- cafard 5y ago
  Doesn't it aim to compete with the abridged version? At this point, I'm being asked to subscribe, so I won't
  - OldGoodNewBad 5y ago
    I dunno. Does it? You seem to know…
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Second paragraph: > The late scholar John Chadwick first came up with the idea to update HG Liddell and Robert Scott’s 1889 dictionary, the Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, in 1997. An abridged version of a lexicon published in 1843, the Liddell and Scott had never been revised, and is packed with antiquated terms and modestly Victorian translations of the more colourful ancient Greek words. Despite this, it remains the most commonly used reference work for students in English schools and universities.

Jiocus 5y ago

More accurate than it's predecessor, which seem to have been engaged in willfully obscuring the content matter – not exactly a success for a dictionary of any pedigree. I don't believe they've been more raunchy or diverse than the ancient greeks themselves were.

OldGoodNewBad 5y ago
>More accurate This is a claim which still remains to be reviewed by the proper authorities.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Seems it was written by pretty much the proper authorities.