5 ms·

> Antiquated and offensive language also gets a makeover. While Liddell and Scott defined βλαύτη (blaute) as “a kind of slipper worn by fops”, in the Cambridge

> Antiquated and offensive language also gets a makeover. While Liddell and Scott defined βλαύτη (blaute) as “a kind of slipper worn by fops”, in the Cambridge Greek Lexicon it is described as “a kind of simple footwear, slipper”; κροκωτός (krokotos) is no longer defined as “a saffron-coloured robe worn by gay women”, but as a “saffron gown (worn by women)”. Does anyone else see the irony here? The article claims that these scholars are undoing damage done by prudish Victorian translators, but they're really just creating a dictionary that's prudish in a different way.

Jiocus 5y ago
I think what the original dictionary did, was describing an ancient term e.g. κροκωτός (krokotos) with a then contemporary occurence i.e. “a saffron-coloured robe worn by gay women”. The latter which may well have been a misconception or prejudice. “Fop became a pejorative term for a foolish man excessively concerned with his appearance and clothes in 17th century England.”[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fop
- Grustaf 5y ago
  They could replace fop with another word that is not pejorative, but why completely remove it?
  - Jiocus 5y ago
    It's not the actual problem, it's just irrelevant. The reference doesn't make sense to describe the actual kind of shoe. The original description doesn't provide a real distinction about the sandal in question, if there ever was one. The authors seem to have concluded from the works, that it was merely a sandal and that nothing points one way or another about its nature. Edit, My reading of the original entry was that it doesn't describe what sandal an ancient Greek equivalent of 'fop' used. The entry then, must have described an 18th-19th century contemporary feature.
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      > My reading of the original entry was that it doesn't describe what sandal an ancient Greek equivalent of 'fop' used. Sure, if that's the case then it doesn't make sense to keep the reference. My reading was that it referred to classical fops.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    A dictionary is supposed to clarify meaning. How many people know what the meaning of fop is these days? It’s not very common in books these days. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Fop&year_start=1500&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Fop&year_start... A synonym for fop in that article is macaroni. If the entry said “a sandal worn by macaroni” it would be extremely confusing for a modern reader.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > How many people know what the meaning of fop is these days? Yep. the issue seems to be that while Ancient Greek is a dead language, English is a moving target. Since 1889, words like "fop" fall out of favour, words like "gay" acquire a secondary meaning (edit, actually another secondary meaning) that in time replaces the original primary one, changing the reader's perception of a definition.
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      > How many people know what the meaning of fop is these days? I don't know. I do, and I'm not a native speaker. And people using Greek dictionaries probably skew towards being pretty well read. But that's besides the point, since I suggested using some other word if they found "fop" offensive.
      - bobthepanda 5y ago
        The full sentence describing the editing in the article starts with “antiquated and offensive language”, which one might interpret to mean the removed words were both of those things, or one could also interpret that antiquated language and offensive language were removed as two possibly overlapping sets. The point of the dictionary is to use “contemporary English” since it’s used as a reference in schools. I’ve definitely seen “fop” before but in high school I wouldn’t say it’s something that I could remember without looking it up in a second dictionary, so it’s not that useful of a defining term. All this offensive or nonoffensive is mountains out of a molehill.
        5y ago
- Grustaf 5y ago
  Also, I don't think any definition of "gay woman" wore saffron coloured robes in Victorian Britain, this is a Classical reference. "The followers of the so-called Krokotos Painter, whose name is derived from the Greek κροκωτός (krokōtos) (saffron-yellow dress robe). The female figures in his work often wear krokōtoi" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus_Painter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus_Painter See also: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG59070 https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG59070
smnrchrds 5y ago
Please keep in mind that when the old dictionary was written, gay simply meant happy.
- httpsterio 5y ago
  Gay can still mean that, but in the context it does not.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    In which context? In the context in which the dictionary entry was written for English academics in 1889, "gay" most certainly did mean "happy" and not homosexual. "Gay" did not come to commonly mean "homosexual" until decades later. Grandparent post has the wrong end of the stick: no prudery is being inserted, outdated _English_ that would be misinterpreted by modern readers has been changed. Ancient Greek is a dead language. English is living.
    - chmod775 5y ago
      Note that, as others have also pointed out elsewhere, "gay woman" used to mean prostitute.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        Right. I have doubts about the academic writer in 1889 using that meaning of "gay", as a phrase it was ambiguous then, and is _differently_ confusing now. Removing it seems like clarity not prudery. Indeed the opposite of prudery, it removes (literally) Victorian assumptions about the wearer of fancy clothes.
    - JoeyBananas 5y ago
      The original definition mentions that the sandals were worn by "fops," but the new definition doesn't say anything about an association with effeminate men. So, they're being prudish about bringing up something that can be interpreted as homophobic.
ramblerman 5y ago
No, they are removing needlessly fluffy language. What even is "a kind of slipper worn by fops"? It's far easier to understand it's just a common slipper. Similarly, I think gay women in this context means "overly" promiscuous. Which is probably what victorians would have though of any woman not wearing a corset.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > Similarly, I think gay women in this context means "overly" promiscuous No, it does not. "gay" did not mainly mean homosexual until mid 20th century. That dictionary entry was written in 1889; well before that. Before that the primary meaning was "happy, cheerful, bright" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
  - ramblerman 5y ago
    From your own wikipedia link: > By the late 17th century, it had acquired the specific meaning of "addicted to pleasures and dissipations",[12] an extension of its primary meaning of "carefree" implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". A gay woman *was a prostitute*,
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      I take your point, but I think it a big stretch that in 1889, an academic would use late 17th century slang, not a common word with a simple primary meaning of "bright, happy". So then the word "gay" has up to three possible meaning to the modern reader, in order of appearance in English: 1) "bright and happy", 2) "promiscuous and slutty", 3) "homosexual". The last meaning definitely wasn't relevant to ancient Greeks, and I'm not sure about the second. So removing this confusing Victorian moralising is still not an exercise in prudery at all? As it removes confusion, it is done for clarity, and if it removes moralising it is the opposite of prudery. Grandparent post from JoeyBananas is not correct on that.
      - jhanschoo 5y ago
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> but they're really just creating a dictionary that's prudish in a different way. I think you have the wrong end of the stick: "Gay" did not become a common slang term for homosexual until "mid-20th century" (1) In the context in which the dictionary entry was written for English academics in 1889, "gay" did not not homosexual at all, it meant "bright", "happy" and "cheerful". i.e. that these clothes were colourful "glad rags". No prudery is being inserted, instead outdated _English_ that would be misinterpreted by modern readers as rude has been changed. Ancient Greek is a dead language, but English is living and changing. Not to mention, the modern identity of "Homosexual" simply wasn't relevant to ancient Greeks. (2) > The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier as modern Western societies have done. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greec...
- ramblerman 5y ago
  It didn't go from meaning cheerful to then suddenly homosexual. It meant promiscuous and immoral in between. The victorian dictionary was implying it is a dress worn by a hooker. from your own source (wikipedia/gay): > A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, and a gay house a brothel.[2] An example is a letter read to a London court in 1885 during the prosecution of brothel madam and procuress Mary Jeffries that had been written by a girl while slaved to a French brothel: > "I write to tell you it is a gay house...Some captains came in the other night, and the mistress wanted us to sleep with them."[13]
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    I take your point, but in 1889 academic English though? The primary meaning was still "happy". Ultimately though, when translating Ancient Greek to modern English, what the 1889 meaning and moralising was is neither here nor there. It is nothing but confusing, and removing it is not "prudish".
jhanschoo 5y ago
I'll put a higher-level reply in addition to commenting on the multiple people wondering what the original entry meant by "gay". In the Victorian LSJ, the entry [1] was > as Subst., κροκωτός (sc. χιτών), ὁ, saffron-coloured robe, worn by gay women, Ar.Th.138, Ec.879; as an offering in temples, IG12.386.22, 22.1514.60, 62; worn by Dionysus (or at his festivals) over the χιτών, Cratin.38, Ar.Ra.46; by effeminate men, παρθένος δ' εἶναι δοκεῖ φορῶν κροκωτούς (prob. for κρος-) Arar.4, cf. Callix.2, Duris 12 J., etc.: neut. pl. κροκωτά (sc. ἱμάτια) v.l. in Ar. Lys.44. https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%89%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82 https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%89%CF%84%CF%... So someone familiar with Dionysian festivals is clear that gay was used with a sexual connotation here. And similarly for effeminate men. But note that many of the other translations don't mention the connection to Bacchus or limit it to "gay women", so one wonders if the evidence actually supports a broader meaning than that.

Jiocus 5y ago

I think what the original dictionary did, was describing an ancient term e.g. κροκωτός (krokotos) with a then contemporary occurence i.e. “a saffron-coloured robe worn by gay women”. The latter which may well have been a misconception or prejudice. “Fop became a pejorative term for a foolish man excessively concerned with his appearance and clothes in 17th century England.”[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fop

Grustaf 5y ago
They could replace fop with another word that is not pejorative, but why completely remove it?
- Jiocus 5y ago
  It's not the actual problem, it's just irrelevant. The reference doesn't make sense to describe the actual kind of shoe. The original description doesn't provide a real distinction about the sandal in question, if there ever was one. The authors seem to have concluded from the works, that it was merely a sandal and that nothing points one way or another about its nature. Edit, My reading of the original entry was that it doesn't describe what sandal an ancient Greek equivalent of 'fop' used. The entry then, must have described an 18th-19th century contemporary feature.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    > My reading of the original entry was that it doesn't describe what sandal an ancient Greek equivalent of 'fop' used. Sure, if that's the case then it doesn't make sense to keep the reference. My reading was that it referred to classical fops.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  A dictionary is supposed to clarify meaning. How many people know what the meaning of fop is these days? It’s not very common in books these days. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Fop&year_start=1500&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Fop&year_start... A synonym for fop in that article is macaroni. If the entry said “a sandal worn by macaroni” it would be extremely confusing for a modern reader.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > How many people know what the meaning of fop is these days? Yep. the issue seems to be that while Ancient Greek is a dead language, English is a moving target. Since 1889, words like "fop" fall out of favour, words like "gay" acquire a secondary meaning (edit, actually another secondary meaning) that in time replaces the original primary one, changing the reader's perception of a definition.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    > How many people know what the meaning of fop is these days? I don't know. I do, and I'm not a native speaker. And people using Greek dictionaries probably skew towards being pretty well read. But that's besides the point, since I suggested using some other word if they found "fop" offensive.
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      The full sentence describing the editing in the article starts with “antiquated and offensive language”, which one might interpret to mean the removed words were both of those things, or one could also interpret that antiquated language and offensive language were removed as two possibly overlapping sets. The point of the dictionary is to use “contemporary English” since it’s used as a reference in schools. I’ve definitely seen “fop” before but in high school I wouldn’t say it’s something that I could remember without looking it up in a second dictionary, so it’s not that useful of a defining term. All this offensive or nonoffensive is mountains out of a molehill.
      - 5y ago
Grustaf 5y ago
Also, I don't think any definition of "gay woman" wore saffron coloured robes in Victorian Britain, this is a Classical reference. "The followers of the so-called Krokotos Painter, whose name is derived from the Greek κροκωτός (krokōtos) (saffron-yellow dress robe). The female figures in his work often wear krokōtoi" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus_Painter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus_Painter See also: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG59070 https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG59070

smnrchrds 5y ago

Please keep in mind that when the old dictionary was written, gay simply meant happy.

httpsterio 5y ago
Gay can still mean that, but in the context it does not.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  In which context? In the context in which the dictionary entry was written for English academics in 1889, "gay" most certainly did mean "happy" and not homosexual. "Gay" did not come to commonly mean "homosexual" until decades later. Grandparent post has the wrong end of the stick: no prudery is being inserted, outdated _English_ that would be misinterpreted by modern readers has been changed. Ancient Greek is a dead language. English is living.
  - chmod775 5y ago
    Note that, as others have also pointed out elsewhere, "gay woman" used to mean prostitute.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      Right. I have doubts about the academic writer in 1889 using that meaning of "gay", as a phrase it was ambiguous then, and is _differently_ confusing now. Removing it seems like clarity not prudery. Indeed the opposite of prudery, it removes (literally) Victorian assumptions about the wearer of fancy clothes.
  - JoeyBananas 5y ago
    The original definition mentions that the sandals were worn by "fops," but the new definition doesn't say anything about an association with effeminate men. So, they're being prudish about bringing up something that can be interpreted as homophobic.

ramblerman 5y ago

No, they are removing needlessly fluffy language. What even is "a kind of slipper worn by fops"? It's far easier to understand it's just a common slipper. Similarly, I think gay women in this context means "overly" promiscuous. Which is probably what victorians would have though of any woman not wearing a corset.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> Similarly, I think gay women in this context means "overly" promiscuous No, it does not. "gay" did not mainly mean homosexual until mid 20th century. That dictionary entry was written in 1889; well before that. Before that the primary meaning was "happy, cheerful, bright" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
- ramblerman 5y ago
  From your own wikipedia link: > By the late 17th century, it had acquired the specific meaning of "addicted to pleasures and dissipations",[12] an extension of its primary meaning of "carefree" implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". A gay woman *was a prostitute*,
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    I take your point, but I think it a big stretch that in 1889, an academic would use late 17th century slang, not a common word with a simple primary meaning of "bright, happy". So then the word "gay" has up to three possible meaning to the modern reader, in order of appearance in English: 1) "bright and happy", 2) "promiscuous and slutty", 3) "homosexual". The last meaning definitely wasn't relevant to ancient Greeks, and I'm not sure about the second. So removing this confusing Victorian moralising is still not an exercise in prudery at all? As it removes confusion, it is done for clarity, and if it removes moralising it is the opposite of prudery. Grandparent post from JoeyBananas is not correct on that.
    - jhanschoo 5y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

> but they're really just creating a dictionary that's prudish in a different way. I think you have the wrong end of the stick: "Gay" did not become a common slang term for homosexual until "mid-20th century" (1) In the context in which the dictionary entry was written for English academics in 1889, "gay" did not not homosexual at all, it meant "bright", "happy" and "cheerful". i.e. that these clothes were colourful "glad rags". No prudery is being inserted, instead outdated _English_ that would be misinterpreted by modern readers as rude has been changed. Ancient Greek is a dead language, but English is living and changing. Not to mention, the modern identity of "Homosexual" simply wasn't relevant to ancient Greeks. (2) > The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier as modern Western societies have done. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greec...

ramblerman 5y ago
It didn't go from meaning cheerful to then suddenly homosexual. It meant promiscuous and immoral in between. The victorian dictionary was implying it is a dress worn by a hooker. from your own source (wikipedia/gay): > A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, and a gay house a brothel.[2] An example is a letter read to a London court in 1885 during the prosecution of brothel madam and procuress Mary Jeffries that had been written by a girl while slaved to a French brothel: > "I write to tell you it is a gay house...Some captains came in the other night, and the mistress wanted us to sleep with them."[13]
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  I take your point, but in 1889 academic English though? The primary meaning was still "happy". Ultimately though, when translating Ancient Greek to modern English, what the 1889 meaning and moralising was is neither here nor there. It is nothing but confusing, and removing it is not "prudish".

jhanschoo 5y ago

I'll put a higher-level reply in addition to commenting on the multiple people wondering what the original entry meant by "gay". In the Victorian LSJ, the entry [1] was > as Subst., κροκωτός (sc. χιτών), ὁ, saffron-coloured robe, worn by gay women, Ar.Th.138, Ec.879; as an offering in temples, IG12.386.22, 22.1514.60, 62; worn by Dionysus (or at his festivals) over the χιτών, Cratin.38, Ar.Ra.46; by effeminate men, παρθένος δ' εἶναι δοκεῖ φορῶν κροκωτούς (prob. for κρος-) Arar.4, cf. Callix.2, Duris 12 J., etc.: neut. pl. κροκωτά (sc. ἱμάτια) v.l. in Ar. Lys.44. https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%89%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82 https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%89%CF%84%CF%... So someone familiar with Dionysian festivals is clear that gay was used with a sexual connotation here. And similarly for effeminate men. But note that many of the other translations don't mention the connection to Bacchus or limit it to "gay women", so one wonders if the evidence actually supports a broader meaning than that.