Customer Reviews

Oxford Latin Dictionary

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

An improvment on Lewis and Short in that it uses modern lexicographical principles. Meanings and senses are better distinguished. Notes on etymology and word formation are included. As a whole, the work is much easier to read.

As it does not include later authors, it is perhaps better used by Classicists than Medievalists, who may find medieval Latin vocabulary lacking. Thankfully for Classicists (and those using Classical texts) it does not present anachronistic distinctions in the graphs for /u/ and /w/, as well as for /i/ and /j/. In this respect, it is truer to Roman orthography and allows the student to look up 'iaceo' where it belongs, under 'i', rather than making up a letter, 'j', which was not part of the Roman alphabet.

Those who have used Lewis and Short for a long time will of course find it difficult to give up their longtime companion. However, those who take the time to acquaint themselves with the first major attempt to improve on the nineteenth century classic, should find the OLD to be a more thorough and accessible guide to Latin of the 'Golden' and 'Silver' ages.

The Oxford Latin Dictionary is a very special dictionary.

Yes, it is expensive.

But I have found no ancient language dicitonary which can compare to it in terms of organization, clarity and fullness of example sentences. This dictionary has a format almost identical to "The Shorter Oxford ENGLISH Dictionary". In other words, it is organized like the very best of modern dictionaries. The meanings given are very good (like in the Shorter Oxford). I almost never refer to my "Lewis and Short" now that I have this -- there is NO comparision.

If you consider yourself a serious student of the language, I strongly suggest you get this dictionary. I refered to it often, even during my first semester of Latin. But if you consider yourself a lover of Latin, you simply MUST do yourself the favor of owning this beautiful work. (Buy it for yourself at Christmas! You deserve it!)

The other dictionary I use and recommend (and which I can carry around) is Cassel's Latin Dictionary.

It may be relevent (in a good or bad way) that I am a true aficionado of dictionaries. I own about 25 dictionaries (most of them english) and use them regularly. Also, I use dictionaries to find the meanings of words I don't know or don't fully know; I don't look in dictionaries "for fun". My favorite english dictionary is The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (That's the "Shorter" two-volume Oxford, not the "Compact" two-volume OED that requires a magnifying glass).

Enjoy!

I'm afraid I cannot agree with those reviewers who underscore the excellence of this dictionary without any nuance. I'd like to point out that in the university where I'm not working at, in Belgium, many Latinists have in its desk the Lewis-Short, and when they need more detail they consult Forcellini or the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. The OLD is of course extraordinary in what regards very rare words, and makes very good use of the evidence of papyri; nevertheless, when it comes to more or less usual words, its advantage over the Lewis-Short seems to be much thinner.

Let me put it with some examples:
You're reading Horace, and you come across this verse: "frigidas noctes non sine multis insomnis lacrimis agit". You doubt about what "agere" means here and you look it up in the OLD. Before coming across with the meaning number 34, subdivision b, ("34. To spend [one's life]; b [other periods of time]"), you'll have easily spent twenty minutes. Even worse: meaning 35 doesn't seem to be so palpably different from the one you've just read ("35. To live one's life"). There are yet more subdivision, that don't seem to add anything substantial: "35: (also transf., esp. of places). b (w. pred. adjs.). c (w. locality indicated)." The main concern of the OLD, here and in other entry, seems to be taxonomy and not meaning. The authores want to classify and sub-classify to an extent that makes the distinctions useless, and the dictionary bulkier than it should (this space could have been used to make the definitions themselves longer and clearer). On occasion, however, they warn the reader. In "postis", for instance, they make clear in the second meaning that "this sense is not always clearly distinguishable in the example from sense 1". This is doubtlessly true; they should have added that these shades are almost never "clearly distinguishable". But this is not the case of "postis" only; it happens in virtually every long entry, and in many of the shorter ones too. A previous reviewer commented extensively on how often two, three or even more different senses are assigned, when it would have been much more user-friendly to put all of these together. In many cases, this excessive subdivision is not just an excess of subtlety, but a mistake, for it aims at putting apart what for Latin writers, but also for us, is rightly felt as only one meaning.
This is in my opinion the first problem: the obsession with classification, which is not even consistent in different parts of the dictionary (some words have much more sense than they reasonably should, as "ago", but some are just fine; I suspect that the first fascicules were much worse than the last ones, and "ago", of course, was already in the first fascicule).

The second problem is that examples are abundant, but they are utterly separated from the meaning of the words; they even appear in a smaller font, as in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. The problem is that, more often than not, this abundance of examples does not help you to see any clearer in the meaning of the word, because they are just an accumulation of instances when the same word is used, and, what is worse, often without any distinguishable shade of meaning. In the Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon, examples are perfectly integrated with the discussion on the meaning of the word itself, and they always illuminate the meaning; they are never, ever gratuitous. In the OLD, examples seem to be there for its own sake.

This leads to another questionable editorial decision: the actual space devoted to defining a word is very restricted. Take "nobilis": there are eight meanings, most of them with two or three sub-meanings, and yet all of these are exceedingly short; possibly some 200 words, all in all. Examples, on the other hand, are many: some 1000 words. I believe that examples are fundamental, but in a dictionary they should help illuminate the meaning of the word. Examples, on the other hand, are in 98 % of cases just thrown there, without any explanation whatever (which, again, is not the case in the Liddell-Scott). I seriously doubt many readers, however interested they may be in the meaning of the word in question, will browse twenty lines of Latin text, just to find the same shades time and again.

In short, this was not what I expected when I bought the OLD. I had been reading a lot of Latin poetry with the Lewis-Short, and thought I would invest some money to have the last word in Latin dictionaries. Needless to say, I was let down. If you want to understand the Latin text, I believe the Lewis-Short is still more useful.

It is also true that the OLD follows the latest lexicographical conventions, and has incorporated material from many sources absent in Lewis-Short. However, as regards the contents, it is difficult to assess if there has been any substantial progress. The proof that it has not simply superseded the Lewis-Short is that Oxford University Press, very sensibly, has not put the Lewis-Short out of press, and this is not, I believe, only because the Lewis-Short include some words from after 200 AD.

Very beautiful, very useful dictionary. Be warned, though, that not everything is as bright as it looks, and that this dictionary is definitely not the gem of scholarship and usefulness the Greek Liddell-Scott is.

At last! A Latin Dictionary with print big enough to read using bifocals!!! The scholarship of this work is unquestioned, as is its comprehensive character. No more looking in vain for some elusive term. Others have commented fully on the substantive wonders of this magnificent dictionary. I write only to add that this work is very accessible--even to those of us with tired old eyes. I know it is costly, but it is well worth the price!

This is the definitive Latn resource for classic Latin. The book itself has become like the classics it seeks to enlighten. HOwever, Oxford Press can hardly justify the price. $300 is had to swallow for any book, no matter how comprehensive. Oxford press has always offered high quality, hard to find texts, yet not many are at the price this Latin dictionary is. I would implore Oxford to bring the price down so that students and researchers alike could have access to this fine work.

This dictionary is an excellent dictionary for classical Latin. Lewis & Shorts dictionary has a wider range of entries, but this one provides a more accurate explanation of works until about 200 AD. The text is easy to read and formed well. Some people may complain about the modern correction of j--> i and v --> u, but these are not obstacles to common sense in terms of pronunciation. If this acts as an obstacle, then you probably have not a need yet for this work; you may want to use Lewis' Elementary Latin Dictionary. That book doesn't have the modern vowel correction and has common and general definitions for most words that would be needed for most cases. The O.L.D. will list all those words and the less common and more case specific functions as well as more references to the sources from the original text. All in all, an excellent book if you have need for such specificity and have a few hundred bucks to spare.

Splendid, magnificent, a monument of scholarship! Beautifully printed & bound in Italy, updated in 2006. This essential reference volumne (not only for Latinists) is laid out on the same lines & format as the "Oxford English Dictionary", making it doubly easy to consult in itself & then to compare with OED entries. Act like a serious scholar & get this!

There are many reasons to recommend this superb reference work, here are a few. Firstly, as to be expected, clear and accurate definitions are given for even the most obscure words. Secondly, there is high quality in the book and binding. Thirdly, the excellent type-face makes for easy reading. And lastly, there is great pleasure in adding such a seminal work in lexography to one's library.

This tome (and it indeed _is_ a tome!) is a fine investment for those who are really, really deep into Latin (i.e., *very* serious scholars, translators, those pursuing a college degree in Latin, etc, etc.). For the majority of us mortals and casual dilettantes, the fabulous Oxford Latin Dictionary is superfluous and overkill (especially considering its price), in my opinion.

Other publications, such as Cassell's Latin Dictionary, are excellent and are a very sufficient Latin reference for most. The latter features a great _English-Latin_ section as well! Of course, one might also consider various other volumes (for instance, Oxford's Elementary Latin Dictionary, and any number of abridged/condensed references..).

If you insist on a Latin dictionary much more comprehensive than Cassell's, I suggest Oxford's "Lewis & Short" Latin dictionary. The latter has a broader scope than the OLD and is a hundred dollars cheaper, as well as being slightly more compact.

Again, the great Oxford Latin Dictionary is a classic work and a wonderful accomplishment but is simply not the best choice for everyone, especially Latin neophytes and those merely desiring a handy and economical home library reference.

Two caveats before I talk about why I love this dictionary:

1) If you have a passing interest in Latin, or are a student of Latin in your first few years, you do not need this dictionary. For such audiences the OLD is not a good value, as it goes far beyond what a beginner or a causal enthusiast requires and you may be overwhelmed with an excess of information. A more concise volume is much better suited to beginners and there are many such dictionaries available. For example, when I started studying Latin, I happily used the Bantam New College Latin & English Dictionary for several years, and I still use it when I need a dictionary I can toss into my laptop case.

2) This dictionary is for classical Latinists. If you are primarily working with medieval/Christian Latin, or even authors from the later empire (post 200ish A.D.) you are better off with Lewis & Short.

Neither of the above two points applies to me, and I truly adore this dictionary. If you belong to its target audience, I imagine you will too. This is one of the most beloved books in my library and I seldom go a day without using it.

On a practical level, I appreciate the clarity of presentation and the readability of the type face. The quality of the printing is important, too: the pages are thin but sufficiently opaque, and there is no sickening chemical 'inky' smell to give me a headache, as with so many other modern books.

From a scholarly perspective the book is even more worthwhile. The meanings given are accurate and precise. As for usage, the ability to quickly see the usage of each sense of each word in literary context via author excerpts is invaluable. I cannot count the number of times I have discovered a previously unknown point on etymology or an interesting parallel in usage because of this dictionary. The specificity and thoroughness of this dictionary are in all senses excellent.

The price *is* hard to swallow, and I wanted this dictionary for a good while before I actually bought it. However, given the use I have gotten out of this dictionary and the time it has saved me, I cannot imagine I would regret owning it even at three times the price.