5 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoThe 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 agoPresumably 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.
- phaemon 5y agoI suspect your assumptions are wrong because you don't know many journalists. I have that misfortune. They will have taken the juiciest part of whatever they were told and made a story from it. Facts are entirely secondary.
- CRConrad 5y ago> The article gives βλαύτη as an example of a word whose definition was updated in order to remove offensive language. Ackcherly, it says "Antiquated and offensive language also gets a makeover." This may be just the antiquated bit, not the offensive one.