Talk:A Latin Dictionary

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

[Untitled]

I've just added a POV tag, because much of this article appears bent on demonstrating the superiority of the Liddel Scott dictionary over Lewis and Short. If it is necessary to mention its apparent superiority, the article should probably include some references for this fact, or some evidence beyond the fact that the former has been revised more often. Torgo 04:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why the author thinks that comparisons with the LSJ Greek Lexicon are inevitable. Lewis and Short is a Latin dictionary used by those who need a less chronologically-restrictive lexicon of Latin words, e.g. medievalists. The LSJ is a Greek dictionary; while this may provide some etymological benefit to someone looking up a problematic word, it serves no comparable function that allows it to be qualitatively better or worse than the L&S for the function that the latter provides. I agree with the POV moderation, and would recommend eliminating the entire section, perhaps replacing it with a discussion of the relative uses of the OLD, L&S, DuCange, Niermeyer, and the like. -Sean wwww.larkvi.com/about.php 142.150.78.240 19:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Editing. Tinalles 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thoroughly reworked. What a wonderful way to waste time and still feel productive! Now, back to that paper that ain't writing itself ... -- Tinalles 06:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of Lewis & Short?

"whereas, since L&S has not been revised since 1879, its text is presumably out of copyright."

Could I safely disregard this warning, if my purpose is educational, not commercial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf Tymark (talk • contribs) 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the copyright has expired then you can safely disregard the warning even for commercial purposes. All copyright expires eventually (with the possible exception of Crown copyright etc in the UK) regardless of what it says on the title page. However, if the edition that you have bought contains recent amendments by the publisher then those particular bits of the book might go back into copyright to the extent that they are unique to that edition.

Out of Print

"Lewis and Short was out of print from the mid-1960s ... in 2020, the dictionary was reprinted under a new publisher." Untrue. I have in my possession a copy of L&S that was printed by Oxford University Press and states clearly on the copyright page "This impression 1996". The statement needs to be either clarified (is it specific to the US?) or removed. 12:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.125.246 (talk)

Further, Oxford University Press themselves specifically mention that they reprinted Lewis & Short in 2002 ( https://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/fileasset/assets/files/Oxford%20Latin%20Dictionary%20A%20Historical%20Introduction.pdf ). I'll delete from the article the bit about it being out of print until 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.125.246 (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]