Monolingual Latin Dictionary

[Nesrad]

It is in fact all about understanding, and it is possible to understand minute details while passing over the general message of the author, which is to move the reader, educate him, or amuse him. If you cannot just read the author, setting aside all the tools that obscure as much as they elucidate, then there is a danger that you'll get tangled up in the details and never see the big picture.

[Victor]

It is in fact all about understanding, and it is possible to understand minute details while passing over the general message of the author, which is to move the reader, educate him, or amuse him. If you cannot just read the author, setting aside all the tools that obscure as much as they elucidate, then there is a danger that you'll get tangled up in the details and never see the big picture.

I'm glad we can agree that, ultimately, it is all about understanding. Where our experience seems to differ is that I've yet to meet anyone with a competent understanding of the minute details who isn't also capable of seeing the bigger picture, whilst I've met plenty of people who can't see the bigger picture and turn out not to be able to see the details either.

[Nesrad]

In my experience, understanding the details is often used as an excuse for using aids to compensate for a lack of fluency. I can think of one student who wrote a Master's thesis on a Greek author, going into some detail on certain passages, but who cannot sight-read the New Testament. This seems like a problem to me.

[John W.]

Much of the NT is indeed relatively straightforward, yet its Greek includes koine constructions, senses of words and theological nuances which might well be unfamiliar territory to someone whose interests lay in Classical literature. Moreover the exact meaning of passages in (for example) Paul's epistles has of course been much debated, not least in this forum! I wouldn't, therefore, set up sight reading of the NT as a universal yardstick.

[Nesrad]

Huh? If someone can't sight read the New Testament, there's not much he can read in ancient Greek. Off hand, I can't think of anything easier. Even Paul's letters are easy. Last time I checked, sight reading doesn't mean exegesis.

[Victor]

Huh? If someone can't sight read the New Testament, there's not much he can read in ancient Greek.

I can think of one student who...cannot sight-read the New Testament.

OK, we gather you find reading the NT easy. John's "much of the NT is indeed relatively straightforward" can hardly be interpreted as representing the opposite view. Saying he wouldn't "set up sight reading of the NT as a universal yardstick" seems perfectly reasonable to me; there is much more to Ancient Greek than the NT. Is there some special imperative that makes its particular idiom a touchstone for a student's overall facility with Ancient Greek? If there is, I'm not aware of it.

[cb]

hi all, i think ultimately the proof of whether this exercise of working on a monolingual dictionary could be useful is actually (a) looking at how it might look concretely and (b) seeing whether there is any appetite to produce one. i have no view personally on whether this is ultimately going to be useful (because as i said earlier the one thing i've always wanted to see is research on whether immersion in a dead language activates some language learning part of the brain not activated by bilingual materials) but this doesn't mean i can't visualise how the work product might turn out. i was thinking about this today and came up with the following. i'd be willing to work on it here and there with others if there was any interest. if not, it probably proves that even if theoretically possible the work invested in it seems less productive than continuing to slog through texts.

***

Monolingual dictionary project

The aim is to produce a dead to dead (D-D) dictionary. We need:

1. The most authoritative dead to living (D-L) dictionary. For Latin I propose the OLD. For Greek I propose LSJ 9th edition including supplement, here: http://www.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/ .

2. A living to living (L-L) dictionary. I propose the Cambridge English Dictionary online: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/

3. A living to dead (L-D) dictionary. For Latin I propose Smith: https://archive.org/details/copiouscriticale00smit . For Greek I propose Woodhouse: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/Woodhouse/.

4. A dictionary entry format, and spelling conventions, to copy. I propose copying the D-L dictionary for that language

5. A word processing format. I propose:
• 14pt Times New Roman for all parts of the dictionary entry other than the quotes part
• 12pt Times New Roman for the quotes part
• don’t use tab for new paragraphs: left align on the same margin all text, and don’t use tab or more than single spacing anywhere within an entry
• put an empty line between each paragraph
• use Unicode only
• don’t use smallcaps (in case this does not work on some systems)
• in Greek, use polytonic characters (and no combining characters) and use iota adscript rather than subscript
• where the D-L abbreviates, copy that except when they are abbreviations of names of authors, reference sources, languages etc but otherwise unabbreviate the word (so if the D-L refers to a reference from Terence as Ter., copy that, but if they prefer to prosody as Pros., translate that into the full unabbreviated term)

6. A list of words to define. The D-L dictionary has too many entries to start from. I propose using the core vocabulary lists from Dickinson college: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/vocab/core-vocabulary .

7. A rule for how much of the D-L to translate. For:
• Latin, all of the first paragraph, each paragraph giving the definitions, and the first quote for each numbered definition
• Greek, all of the first paragraph and each following paragraph up to the end of the first quoted example

8. A rule for translating the definition from the D-L (given that it will usually give the living synonym, which you can’t translate into dead because it will likely be the same as the word being defined, eg DEUS may be defined in E-L as god, which you cannot then translate as DEUS because you would then define DEUS as meaning DEUS). I propose the following format for:
• Latin: (exempla) …, (significatio) …
• Greek: (οἷον) …, (ὃ σημαίνει) … .
Rules 9 and 10 explain how to fill out the … parts.

9. The first … in each case (i.e. after (exempla) in Latin and after (οἷον) in Greek) will be an extensional definition, giving at least 3 common examples of the term, separated by commas, with no connectives or other words other than articles in the case of Greek. For instance :
• in the case of Latin, you could put for deus: (exempla) Iuppiter, Neptūnus, Mars
• in the case of Greek, you could put for θεός : (οἷον) ὁ Ζεύς, ὁ Ποσειδῶν, ὁ Ἀπόλλων.

10. The second … in each case will be an intensional definition, giving the genus and differentia. There are many ways we could do this, but for consistency, the first draft definition can be a translation of the L-L definition of the definition given in the D-L. So eg for Latin, the D-L defines deus as god. The L-L defines god as a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being. The same L-L can be used for both Latin and Greek D-D projects. Rules 11 and 12 give more information on actually preparing this intensional definition.

11. A set of rules should be developed for choosing the best intensional definition from the L-L to translate into the dead language, where the L-L gives several. As a rough beginning :
• it should be the most general of the definitions offered by the L-L
• it should be appropriate to the dead language concerned (i.e. not referring to cultures or ideas outside those of the dead language)

12. A set of rules should be developed for translating the intensional definition into the dead language. As a rough beginning :
• put the genus as the first word in your definition (ie the more general class into which the defined term falls), then the rest of the definition will explain the quality o qualities that differentiate the defined terms from other members of the same general class (and in Greek, mark this clearly by the articles, eg define ἄνθρωπος as τὸ ζῶιον τὸ …)
• don’t define using synonyms, this will lead to circularity
• use the L-D dictionary to translate key terms from the L-L (this will help consistency)
• use golden age (Cicero and Caesar) vocabulary and idiom for Latin, and use 5th and 4th century Attic prose for Greek
• the definition should not include the term being defined or related words if possible (and so eg the definition of deus should not include the word deus or related words such as divinus, unless the D-L dictionary is specifically giving that sense)
• the verb used in the predicate if any should be the most simple and frequent rather than a rarer synonym. The definition should not be harder to understand than the defined term itself
• (for Greek) when translating grammatical terms (eg parts of speech, tenses etc) into the dead language, use William Annis’ document here for Greek grammar in Greek: http://scholiastae.org/docs/el/greek_gr ... _greek.pdf
• cited words should be prefixed with τό in Greek, or put in italics in Latin

13. Pictures should be included to show the defined term itself, as well as the terms used in the extensional definition and the intensional definition. This should be adjusted according to common sense. So for the defined term deus, it would make sense to include pictures of Iuppiter, Neptūnus and Mars, but not necessarily the class deus itself or any terms used in the intensional definition, which are all more abstract. On the other hand, for a defined term such as fagus, it would make sense to insert a picture of a fagus itself (ie the defined term) and not necessarily any terms used in the extensional or intensional definitions of fagus. Rule 14 explains which pictures to select and Rule 15 explains how to display them.

14. Source copyright-free images from Wiki Commons. So that the pictures look roughly the same size (although deviation is fine), select a version of the pictures having its width closest to 1,000 pixels. No need to re-size the picture though, just choose the available version closest to this number. Try to find pictures appropriate to the culture and ideas of the dead language, so for deus use a Roman god.

15. Use this format for displaying pictures:
• group them all at the end of the whole dictionary entry, prefixed with a heading Imagines:
• put immediately above the picture the word being represented by the picture as a label (in lowercase italics, 14pt Times New Roman)
• put immediately below the picture a link to the picture source (in 12pt Times New Roman)
• align the picture (plus its label above it and its link below it) to the left on the same margin as the text.

16. At the end of the entry, put in square brackets on a new line your name or initials, then after a comma the date in the format day month (in a word) year, then a version number shown as v and then an integer (updated each time the definition is subsequently amended), e.g. :
[Chad, 2 April 2015, v1]

17. In terms of choosing which words to select from the wordlist for defining, start off with a free choice.

18. If a critical mass of D-D definitions are produced, these can be collated by someone online. In the meantime, saving on this site somewhere is fine – if it goes nowhere, that’s fine, at least this concrete procedure will give an outline way forward for anyone interested in this in the future, or interested in combatting this as a useful exercise – either approach is fine by me.

Example (I'm not going to bother pasting in the linked pictures, it's just a thought bubble to give an idea for discussion purposes if anyone is interested - and note if i was going to participate in this i'd want to go through a latin prose comp again, it's been a while):

***

deus deī, m. [< deiu̯ī; Skt. dēváḥ, OIr. dia, Lith. diēvas] Formae: sg. voc. deus Larg.84; pl. nom. di, dei, dii; gen. deorum, deum; dat., abl. dis, deis, diis, et dibus CIL 3.2100, deibus A. Epig.34.23, diibus Petr.44.16(cj.). Prosodia: duae syllabae saepe, nonnumquam in Pl., Ter., etc. in verbo deorum duae primae syllabae in thesi arsive ponuntur.

1 (exempla) Iuppiter, Neptunus, Mars, (significatio) mens aut quicumque est, qui partibus quibusdam mundi naturaeve imperare creditur, eoque saepe ab hominibus colitur. b (in nominibus communibus). c (in exclamationibus variis et aliis sermonibus cottidianis)

quem di diligunt adulescens moritur PL.Bac.816 b PER IOVEM DEOSQVE PENATE<IS> CIL 1.582.24 c ut illam di perdant! Naev.com.19

2 a (in verbis superlatis, hominibus ad prosperitatem felicitatemve attributum). b (alicui familiae Caesaris in deorum numero collocato attributum).

a deus sum si hoc itast Ter.Hec.843 b <BE>NEFIC DEI CAESARIS CIL 1.1611

3 (huius in 1 supra definiti) aut statua aut imago.

deum denique nullum Siculis … reliquit Cic.Ver.14

4 divinum quiddam; supremum quiddam.

unum esse omnia … et id esse deum Cic.Luc.118

Imagines:

Iuppiter
[picture linked below would be inserted here]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... upiter.jpg

Neptunus
[picture linked below would be inserted here]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... -29_02.JPG

Mars
[picture linked below would be inserted here]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... f_Mars.JPG

[Chad, 19 April 2015, v1]

[Nesrad]

OK, we gather you find reading the NT easy. John's "much of the NT is indeed relatively straightforward" can hardly be interpreted as representing the opposite view. Saying he wouldn't "set up sight reading of the NT as a universal yardstick" seems perfectly reasonable to me; there is much more to Ancient Greek than the NT. Is there some special imperative that makes its particular idiom a touchstone for a student's overall facility with Ancient Greek? If there is, I'm not aware of it.

I see the N.T. as a reasonable way to test if someone can read ancient Greek, being as it is the most well-known text in ancient Greek that we possess, the one the most people are familiar with in translation, possibly the simplest in terms of grammar and vocabulary, so yes, why not use it as a yardstick? Any better ideas?

[Nesrad]

hi all, i think ultimately the proof of whether this exercise of working on a monolingual dictionary could be useful is actually (a) looking at how it might look concretely and (b) seeing whether there is any appetite to produce one.

And I thought my idea of adapting the Elementary Lewis was ambitious (and unrealistic, to be honest). I am not particularly cynical about new ideas, but I must admit that this idea of devising a new monolingual dictionary is ethereal at best.

[John W.]

I see the N.T. as a reasonable way to test if someone can read ancient Greek, being as it is the most well-known text in ancient Greek that we possess, the one the most people are familiar with in translation, possibly the simplest in terms of grammar and vocabulary, so yes, why not use it as a yardstick? Any better ideas?

Turning this on its head, it could be argued that the NT's very familiarity means that many people - especially those of a religious bent - will be so well versed in it in English as virtually to carry around with them an internalised translation of large swathes of the text, so that apparent ease or rapidity in reading the Greek may be as much due to that circumstance as to anything else.

Do we in any case need a single yardstick? Be that as it may, I think we are all agreed as to the importance of doing all that one can to acquire a thoroughgoing knowledge of the ancient languages; the question has surely been about means to that highly desirable end. As I've said, I'm entirely happy for individuals to use whatever approach - monolingual, bilingual or multilingual - suits them best. It would be nice, however, if some (and I stress some) of the advocates of monolingualism weren't quite so ready, in their zeal for their favoured method, to condemn everyone else as mere 'decipherers' or 'decoders'.

With regard to commentaries and other 'tools', I maintain that these are generally beneficial (and in some cases essential), firstly in terms of assessing the likely meaning of problem passages, and second to enhance one's understanding of context, sources and allusions both internal and external. For me this is much preferable to struggling in isolation through a context-free text; nor does consulting commentaries imply deficiencies in one's own knowledge of the language in question. With regard to the many problem passages which not infrequently crop up, in my view it would be frankly foolish to seek to reinvent the wheel by ignoring the accumulated wisdom of previous generations of scholars.

[Markos]

thanks, Chad, for those guidelines and your example of what a Monolingual Dictionary might look like.

I sort of started one myself for Ancient Greek. Scroll down to see my entry for ξυράω

http://sxole.com/profiles/blog/show?id= ... nt%3A28389

Looking at it now two years later, I'm not real happy with it, but I think that just shows that the execution, not the conception, needs improvement. My latest thought is that it would be more helpful, and maybe easier, to focus the project on the more rare words.

...I must admit that this idea of devising a new monolingual dictionary is ethereal at best.

Man never is, but always to be blessed.

Huh? If someone can't sight read the New Testament, there's not much he can read in ancient Greek. Off hand, I can't think of anything easier.

Trust me, if there was anything written in Greek easier than Mark or John, I would have found it a long time of go. Arguably the Didache and Joseph and Asenath.

[cb]

hi mark, just some thoughts on your approach linked above:

it would be hard to have others collaborate on because you have freestyled the definition and the format - it would need to have some sort of procedure or rules set out i think to allow others to help with a consistent output.

it loses the advantages of following the D-L entry format - firstly, you lose the full range of meanings identified within the LSJ (which is what i was saying above, it seems a waste to lose the centuries of fine discrimination among lexical meanings), second, you can't say to someone "see meaning II b in the LSJ entry" anymore (the advantage of following the D-L format is that people can look up either the bilingual or the monolingual one).

also because you are freestyling the definition itself, rather than relying on a L-L dictionary for consistency, i think it will depend on people's ingenuity and fidelity to the actual meaning and so the output might be variable. eg i'm not actually sure (without digging into the Greek references) that your entry for shave as τέμνω τὰς τρίχας is a more or less accurate definition for Greek than how the L-L defines it, as to remove hair from the body ... by cutting it close to the skin with a razor, so that the skin feels smooth.

you can see my thoughts above are not questioning your output itself but more about how to turn it into a curriculum or process that can be consistently carried out by lots of people. for consistent output i think your process would depend on the heavy investment of an individual scholar. when stephanus produced his monolingual latin dictionary (which sits on my desk, held up by the millenium edition of feynman's lectures on physics), it required 2 years of very heavy personal investment, and then years more work to get it to its final form in 1543, see bottom of pg 194 here and then read on to pg 211 to see a history of monolingual latin dictionaries up to stephanus' third edition: https://archive.org/stream/ofearlyparis ... 4/mode/2up

one thing that might surprise is that the first two editions were bilingual, lots of french throughout. he was urged to produce a truly monolingual dictionary and pulled this off in the third edition, but at great personal investment. he was noted for his scrupulous accuracy, hanging up his draft sheets around the left bank in paris, offering cash to people who spotted errors. to accomplish a similar enterprise in a world of mere humans would require i think a procedure requiring less creative flair and ingenuity and more algorithmic-type rules and procedures to follow.

the benefits to people investing time in it would be close reading of the dictionary and some latin prose comp that may actually be read by others in the future, provided that it's up to the scholarly standard of the bilingual resources. the question then becomes whether that investment would be outweighed by continuing to slog through texts, open question.

cheers, chad

[Markos]

Just coincidentally, soon after Nesrad started this thread, I received my copy of the just published Monolingual Dictionary of Ancient Greek by Emiliano Caruso.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=63332

Obviously, this new work is a game changer on the Greek side of things. I would think it could be a model for what Nesrad has in mind.

...a procedure requiring less creative flair and ingenuity and more algorithmic-type rules and procedures to follow.

I'd say Caruso's work is closer to the former. It's more idiosyncratic brilliance than committee work. One can even get a sense of his politics by which GNT quotes he uses over and over again.

• don’t define using synonyms, this will lead to circularity

Caruso breaks this rule, but if you keep looking up each synonym and paraphrase that he gives, you get successively more info, ultimately leading back to the familiar, so his method works.

Try to find pictures appropriate to the culture and ideas of the dead language, so for deus use a Roman god.

Caruso breaks this rule too. His pictures are very basic and stylized (and very small.) His picture of an ἄγκυρα looks more like its modern than ancient equivalent, but it is instantly recognizable. Like most proponents of the Direct Method, he seems more interested in utility than historical precision. I'd say his governing principles seem to be (1) have the lexicon be fun to read (2) be brief enough to get the reader back to reading Greek ASAP.

Don't get me wrong, Chad, for its comprehensiveness I really like the project you outline. (And I like your (D-D) nomenclature--my own catchword is "we are the dead.") I think your project can and should be done. But I love having Caruso's Monolingual Dictionary in my hands now.

I note that Caruso's entry on ξυρέω, (a word which Rouse did not cover) turns out to be pretty similar to mine.

ξυρέω =τέμνω τρίχας (τινός), κείρω. παροιμία σημαίνει κίνδυνον. ξυρεῖν λέοντα.

[Nesrad]

From the sample I consulted, it looks like it's on par with Comenius's or Wagner's Lexicons, which is fine for beginners but not enough for intermediate or advanced readers who like to keep a portable dictionary handy.

For the past week I've been examining a 1778 Calepinus. It has been difficult to use because it takes so long to find an entry since the headwords are not indexed in the PDF file, so I an reserving judgement until I get more hands-on experience. But it is the most promising intermediate monolingual dictionary that I've seen so far.

[cb]

hi all, sorry for those who aren't super interested in monolingual dictionaries for continuing this - but i like others here think there is value in the idea. the question though is where is the value. i've realised there is no absolute answer one can give for this, it depends on the type of word being defined. looking through the dickinson college word lists that i linked above, and reading the full LSJ / OLD entries for these words and thinking about whether a monolingual dictionary would actually be helpful, i made the following initial division of words:

1. ostensive definitions: words like βοῦς where the core sense could be given simply by a few examples in pictures only. you wouldn't need a word-definition really. this goes to one goal of the monolingual dictionary supporters - you avoid your living language - but not by defining in dead language, instead by simply giving a picture or 2 as an ostensive definition. so here actually the value of monolingual dictionaries would be close to zero as the pictures would be doing all the work.
i question even whether the monolingual version of the first sense of the deus definition i gave above (putting aside that i should have put saepe next to the verb) would be any more useful than a few pictures of different roman gods. my guess is not.

2. under-determined ostensive definitions: there are some words which denote simple actual things, like "skin" or "daughter" or something like that, where it's hard to give a picture of them because someone looking at the picture might bring away the wrong idea (eg "arm" or "girl"). you could avoid the living language words "skin" and "daughter" by giving pictures of them and then adding some words in the dead language as a hint to determine the denotation. does using the dead language here really give a benefit though? i'm not sure. maybe it does, because you would bring in to the determination hint related words in the dead language - but then again the real benefit of this approach in the first place would be avoiding using the actual words "skin" and "daughter" in the definition, to stop you associating a dead language word with a modern tag - but you could achieve the same thing by giving the same pictures and the determination hints in a living language rather than the dead language. this would have the same effect as giving the determination hint in the dead language - it would (or may) stop you mentally making the 1-to-1 tagging between a dead word and a living word, instead you would tag the dead word with the picture in either case. so here once again a monolingual dictionary would not come into its own.

3. operational definitions: some of the most common words (eg the article and other particles) have very long dictionary entries which are light on semantic content and heavy on how the words are used operationally in the language, ie it sets out rules and patterns. i'm not sure whether there's a really substantial value in reading about these rules and patterns in the dead language itself, other than the incidental benefit of having read an extra minute or so of the dead language (but you could have this benefit equally well by reading actual authors).

so far, 1 to 3 above don't present to me a convincing argument for investing time in preparing a dead language version of a dictionary containing these words. words in item 1 would be better served by having a separate ostensive dictionary, like a visual dictionary covered in dead language tags, or (say for kids) stickers or colouring pages with the dead language words on there. no living language need intrude but this does not mean monolingual is needed here. this would be the language of pictures. words in groups 2 and 3 give the incidental benefit of a few extra minutes of reading dead language but i don't think - right now - that this payoff would be worth the investment in preparing a monolingual dictionary of them.

4. prepositions and abstract words - this is where i can see real value in a monolingual dictionary. read the definition of ἐπί say, look at the different senses, and you can see how a monolingual translation could be useful. concretely, the definition would be an expression that you could substitute for the preposition in that place. where would this be useful? in say student texts, giving a simplified version of the text for reading before giving the real thing.
general verbs such as γίγνομαι could also benefit from this approach. abstract words are also a good case for defining a word in terms of associated words within the language. it would help you in particular with words that fall under the same genus, to help you cement in your mind the distinctions and what differentiates them.

so to summarise, in terms of what would actually be useful, i think a visual dictionary-type approach would be the best way to avoid the living language for words in category 1, i'm not sure there's any real advantage in leaving the living language for categories 2 and 3, and i think it would be worth a try to see whether a monolingual dictionary focusing only on more abstract terms and highly-used terms having multiple concrete senses (such as prepositions) could be useful for giving simpler and more readily understood definitions of the terms themselves - the very purpose of a learning tool such as a dictionary.

the reason i keep thinking about this in terms of quantity of work is i'm well aware of the work and time involved in putting together many of the key dictionaries over the last 500 years - read e.g. the history of the OLD's preparation for an interesting story. i've also linked above to descriptions of the work invested in renaissance latin dictionaries. i spent some of my spare time - in short supply - this weekend reading cicero's de amicitia which only took a few hours thanks to nodictionaries.com, and wouldn't have traded that for working on a few dictionary definitions.

despite the daunting nature of the task though and the limited application where it would have real benefits (my category 4 above) i certainly think some investment of work in this area can be useful - firstly for the person working on it, because prose composition and close reading of dictionaries is never wasted effort; secondly for the person reading it, because (in the case of category 4 words) reading it would (in the case of abstract words) strengthen your understanding of the place of the word within its local web of related words far better than simply reading the living language tag for the word and (in the case of a word having many concrete senses) would give you a real concrete dead language tag to substitute in place of the word and try it out. if you spend time reading ancient scholia you'll see that this is how learners have been learning words like this for a long time.

just further rambling thoughts, happy to hear your views. cheers, chad

[Markos]

From the sample [of Caruso's new monolingual Greek dictionary] I consulted, it looks like it's on par with Comenius's or Wagner's Lexicons, which is fine for beginners but not enough for intermediate or advanced readers who like to keep a portable dictionary handy.

Maybe a more pertinent distinction here is not between beginner's and advanced lexicons, but between those that are meant to be read or studied, and those that are meant to be used while reading texts. Let's call them Study lexicons versus Reader's lexicons.

Speaking on the Greek side of things, LSJ is obviously a Study lexicon. It's quite impractical to use while reading texts, because it takes so long to locate and slog through the entries. The editors themselves of course recognized this, which is why they put out the Middle and Little Liddels-- both excellent Reader's lexicons themselves. An even better Greek Reader's lexicon is Langenscheidt. This is the bilingual dictionary I use if, as Nesrad says, I want to "keep a portable dictionary handy."

Now, Caruso's just published Monolingual Dictionary of Ancient Greek is also a Study lexicon, for at least two reasons. 1. It is meant to be read straight through for pleasure and edification. 2. It does not work as a Reader's lexicon because its entries are too long (among other things he repeats the full quotes from the GNT in most entries) and it covers only 5000 words. A Reader's lexicon MUST be comprehensive, because there is nothing more frustrating than looking up a word while you are reading and not finding it.

Now, Chad has already outlined the ideal Greek monolingual Study lexicon--essentially translating LSJ into Ancient Greek and adding pictures. He and I would only disagree in that I would add Ancient Greek synonyms and (and antonyms.)

But, what would an idea Greek monolingual Reader's lexicon look like? The entries would have to be brief, and this means short L2 definitions, synonyms/antonyms, and pictures. Probably the best way to produce this for would be to first produce the ideal monolingual Study lexicon, and then to edit it down to a Reader's lexicon. Maybe, because the Reader's lexicon is designed to be used by intermediate readers, you could just skip the 500-1000 most common 500-1000 words.

So Nesrad has really raised the bar. Not only do we need a new monolingual Latin dictionary, but we need two versions, a Study and Reader's lexicon! "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?"

...I see my dream Intermediate Latin-Latin Dictionary as a recycling machine, exposing me repeatedly to the most BASIC vocabulary and structures of the target language.

For me Caruso fits the bill here. When I spend an hour or so reading him, it's almost like I can feel my brain getting rewired to be more in tune with the target langauge. Chad has spoken elsewhere about this "re-enforcing language loop."

hi, i definitely think monolingual resources are the way to go for vocab (but maybe not for other areas of learning), because you make the link between the word being defined and the words used in the definition. i.e. the definition of X is YZ. Then when you see X again it reminds you of Y and Z, and when you see Y or Z it reminds you of X, etc etc. it keeps looping you into the language and reinforces vocab retention.

Now, you would think that simply reading real texts in the target language would also trigger the loop. But it's not the same thing. Reading a Greek definition of a Greek word, or a Greek paraphrase of a Greek text, or those mono-lingual scholiast-like helps that Chad has produced, seems to trigger a certain CONNECTIVITY and REPETITION in the target language that FEELS as if it leads to deeper internalization and fluency. Chad has repeatedly asked for research to back up the efficacy of this loop. But I don't think you can empirically prove this. Rather, one should just try it, and see if it works for you.

To me L1 simply breaks the loop. That doesn't mean of course that I never use L2 resources, just that they break the loop.

...to stop you associating a dead language word with a modern tag...

You've made some good points about this issue above, and the use of pictures and L2 to resolve it, but let me say only this. The equation of Greek words with L2 glosses is a problem, but one that as a practical matter is very hard to avoid. But whether a good mono-lingual dictionary can prevent this from happening in the first place, reading and re-reading them can, I think, partially undo these associations. Caruso is very effective for this.

3. operational definitions: some of the most common words (eg the article and other particles) have very long dictionary entries which are light on semantic content and heavy on how the words are used operationally in the language, ie it sets out rules and patterns. i'm not sure whether there's a really substantial value in reading about these rules and patterns in the dead language itself, other than the incidental benefit of having read an extra minute or so of the dead language (but you could have this benefit equally well by reading actual authors).

This would, I think be, the hardest part of translating LSJ into Ancient Greek. Metalanguage tends to be obtuse and hair-splitting and jargon-filled, and one's composition skills would have to be really good to render some of this stuff into Greek. But LSJ overall has limited meta-language, and it tends to be clearer than most (Smyth is even better,) so, it could be done. And, anyway, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp/ Or what's a heaven for?"

[metrodorus]

There are a few other useful dictionaries and lexica - though most are for 'walled gardens' of vocabulary for specific subject areas or a particular corpus of work. Apart from the ones mentioned already, (apologies if some of these have already been noted) I can think of:-



https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_5hEAAAAcAAJ Gradus ad Parnassum - not strictly a dictionary, but it gives synonyms and antonyms, so often enough detail to work out what a word means, assuming you already have a baseline vocabulary.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vOg7AAAAcAAJ Hortulus Puerorum

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TJw5A-IhV_EC Lexicon Ciceronianum

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GcVMAAAAcAAJ Lexicon Technologiae Latinorum Rhetoricae

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8DVFAAAAcAAJ Perfectissimus Calepinus Parvus

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mto9AAAAcAAJ Calepinus - Latinae atque adeo etiam Graecae Linguae Dictionarium

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=etW3XRduEMoC Glossarium Eroticum Linguae Latinae

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jLnFUO89j14C Thesaurus Eroticus Linguae Latinae

[Nesrad]

The last two might come in handy...

[mwh]

I rarely find glossaries erotic.

[Nesrad]

Rarely, eh?

[Markos]

...to those who long for monolingual resources, i would say: even better than wishing for a resource to be produced is doing it yourself, you will probably get 1,000 times more use out of producing a 20 word monolingual dictionary yourself (starting from the 20 most frequent words) that you build yourself (as this i think activates yet another part of the brain when you are engaged yourself in constructing something) rather than getting a nice pocketbook from the bookstore.

With the publication of Emiliano Caruso's Monolingual Dictionary of Ancient Greek, on the Greek side of things, this is no longer an either/or. Anyone who is serious about reading him is likely to be serious about supplementing him. Caruso's 5000 entries will need to be increased to at least 20,000, and this is likely to be done by his readers. His book includes lots of white space between the entries, and I have already started adding my own monolingual definitions as I encounter new words not found in his book. At some point, these can be posted on line, and then his lexicon can either be reissued with reader's contributions or a supplement produced.

Caruso (p. 60) distinguishes between αὐξάνω and αὐξάνομαι with ποιῶ (τι) μέγα versus γίγνομαι μέγας, thus avoiding the L1 meta-language "transitive versus intransitive." I had always thought of Greek verbs in terms of the latter; Caruso has gotten me to write definitions in terms of the former. He also has introduced me to the concept of defining words this way: εἰ ἱμάτιον οὐκ ἔχω, γυμνός εἰμι. (my own supplement to his entry.) He's not just an monolingual lexicographer, that is, but someone who encourages all of us to become monolingual lexicographers. It now makes sense for his book to be the focus of the sort of project that Nesrad has desired for Latin.

On the Latin side, there may be less of a need of a pioneer like Caruso, since it sounds like Latin monolingual lexicography is already well established; is it just a matter of editing it into a user friendly edition?

[calvinist]

But, what would an idea Greek monolingual Reader's lexicon look like?

In my opinion a Reader's lexicon should not include the top 500-1000 most frequent words in the language. Those words I think are best learned by simple translation into the L1. For instance, I'm teaching my 7-year old daughter Latin with LLPSI and some conversational use and simply telling her that deus means "G/god" and et means "and" is much easier than anything else. This would include all the prepositions, conjunctions, demonstratives, pronouns, interrogatives, etc. The lexicon would include the words from there up (the less frequent words), and define those words in simple, concise, yet very good Latin/Greek by using the top 1000 words as much as possible. This would save a lot of space because the less frequent a word is the more specific its meaning becomes and the fewer idioms it has. I don't see the pedagogical value in having a full Latin/Greek version of something like this: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#facio or this: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#ποιέω Such words that are very common and have loads of idiomatic uses are best left to the great "D-L" dictionaries like OLD, L&S, LSJ in my opinion. But something like this: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#mitiscus can be read and understood by my 7-year old daughter (I only had to explain that caballus est equus since we haven't seen that word yet).

[Jandar]

Well, there is a latin-Latin Orbis pictus latinus: Lateinisches Bildlexikon (click 'Blick ins Buch' for sample pages... such a preview is not available on the corresponding page at the English Amazon site).

[Nesrad]

Interesting, but would anyone find this useful?

[metrodorus]

What about the Lexicon Ciceronianum? Although it had a necessarily limited vocabulary, it is Latino-Latinum.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=11kTAAAAYAAJ

[Markos]

Just to follow up on a discussion we were having a while back:

Monolingual dictionary project

The aim is to produce a dead to dead (D-D) dictionary. We need:

1. The most authoritative dead to living (D-L) dictionary... For Greek I propose LSJ 9th edition including supplement...

It turns out that Konstantinidis' 1904 Katharevousa translation of the lexicon functions as a pretty thorough Ancient Greek monolingual study lexicon.

http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... =2&t=63794

I've been using the LSK for months and I would say that, in conjunction with Caruso's lexicon, we now have on the Greek side about 85% of what we need.

So, in an ideal world, it would not be necessary to translate the LSJ into Ancient Greek, but only to revise the LSK. (and maybe add pictures.)

[will.dawe]

Reviving old topic...

I have a Latin-Latin dictionary [1] made of Appleton's schoolbooks. This lexicon is limited and intended for beginners, but I find it useful. So, if one transcribes Chickering's "Beginners' Latin by the direct method" [2] (55 pages) I could convert it into a computer dictionary.

[1]: https://nikita-moor.github.io/dictionar ... n1914.html
[2]: https://archive.org/details/beginnersla ... ch/page/86

[will.dawe]

Here is nearly monolingual Latin dictionary:

• Theatrum Latino-Germanico-Graecum, Reyher (1712)

Currently, number of the articles is almost 70000, but it should be reduced to 40000, because some of them are not independent articles but sub-definitions and should be joined. So, it's a real-size dictionary, even though some lexis is Medieval.