From: Edward Hobbs (EHOBBS@WELLESLEY.EDU)
Date: Tue Jul 16 1996 - 14:52:29 EDT
From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 16-JUL-1996 13:50:06.98
To: IN%"emkrentz@mcs.com"
CC: EHOBBS
Subj: RE: At last! -- LSJM, new supplement !
Dear Ed(gar):
<Edward, I only bought the new supplement, being a too parsimonious German
<to purchase again that LSJ. I bought mine on March 19, 1951 for $15.00!
I paid $14.70, plus shipping! (It was 5 guineas, and at $2.80 a pound, it
came to just $14.70. Blackwell's was my source for years, and Bankers
Trust in NYC was the agent for payment.)
<I actually prefer the two volume edition with separate suplement [provided
<I have my large desktop clear], since I can then have all three volumes open
<at different entries.
So do I; I keep that set in my main office where I have a large desk. My
home study and library study have much less desk-surface.
<As I did my classical degree I learned to use LSJ in
<preference to the middle sized one all the time--though Philip H. DeLacy
<warned me that the material on Hellenistic-Roman philosophy was weak. And I
<certainly read a lot of that with him!
My professors at Chicago (chiefly Benedict Einarson and Gertrude Smith -- I
missed Paul Shorey by quite a few years) never let on that a smaller lexicon
existed--for which I have had cause many times over to thank them. I either
bought the 8th edition, used the 8th in the library, or didn't do Greek.
The 9th wasn't yet available, though it existed in England, during the War.
<Did you do any checking to see if all the material that Barber has is
<included in the Glare supplement? And did you compare the list of editions
<used with the TLG CANON OF GREEK AUTHORS AND WORKS to see whehter they
<agree about the best editions available?
Alas, I've not had time yet; but I will do both before long. Better idea:
How about YOU checking and comparing, and telling the rest of us?
<Any thought of selling some of those redundant LSJs?
I suppose I should; but I really only have two I'm willing to part with now
(I really want one in each office or study, but don't need a fourth since I
no longer have an office at Harvard). Since I often give a lexicon to some
of my good students (usually Bauer-AGD), I probably should do that with
these two.
NEW TOPIC--ASCII:
Ed, your suggestions are improvements, which I instantly accept,
and suspect Carl will also (but of course I should not assume that, so I'll
wait for word from Carl). As for C = Chi -- I, too, have a hard time with
this one. But what are the alternatives? If X = Chi, then what about Xi?
If C = Sigma (where S will do handily), what of Chi? I've thought about
having Ch = Chi, as the one non-single-letter transliteration, since it is
so traditional a digraph, but two problems: any automatic decoding program
would not read it, or would read the "h" as rough breathing and not know
what to do with "C". So I guess we're more or less stuck with C for Chi.
If we could only do macrons on the Internet, I'd prefer the traditional
method!
I'll forward a copy of this to Carl, as well as a corrected copy of the
whole message (to accord with your suggestions) to each of you. If both
of you say OK, I'll approach Marotta in the name of the three of us, for
proposed incorporation into the Welcome message.
Edward
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT