Ne quem despectes, nocet et parvissimus hostis

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
USA
I've never heard of that tool (Whitaker's Words) before. I'll start using it. Are you also suggesting, though, that I stop using L&S?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
No! He said L&S wasn't to blame. It's a good dictionary.
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
USA
Oh! Ok, ok. I've never been able to distinguish which "features" are those of Perseus versus L&S, so I easily confuse the two.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
The parsing (i.e. when it tells you the case, number, gender or tense etc. of a word) is Perseus's; the dictionary entries themselves (definitions with examples) are L&S's.
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
USA
:bounce: That makes so much more sense now! Plurimas gratias tibi ago!
 

Imber Ranae

Ranunculus Iracundus

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Grand Rapids, Michigan
I've never heard of that tool (Whitaker's Words) before. I'll start using it. Are you also suggesting, though, that I stop using L&S?
Of course not. You always seem to confuse Perseus Project's (or rather its website's) word study tool (which I'm not suggesting you should cease to use, but only not to rely upon) with Lewis & Short's Latin Dictionary, which Perseus has an online edition of in searchable format. It's a perfectly fine dictionary which even mentions parvissimus as an alternative form of minimus under the lemma parvus. It's the word study tool that fails to recognize both that and despectes.

ETA: Yeah, what PP said...
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
That is a thorough explanation.
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
USA
I realize I've substantially hilariously derailed the thread, but to clarify: What I am observing here is the result of Lewis & Short's Latin Dictionary and Perseus' parsing tool, yes?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
I realize I've substantially hilariously derailed the thread, but to clarify: What I am observing here is the result of Lewis & Short's Latin Dictionary and Perseus' parsing tool, yes?
That is Perseus's parsing tool that has recognized a form, telling you what it knows about it, and proposing you to view L&S's dictionary entry for that word if you click on "Lewis & Short". Before you click that, it isn't actually Lewis & Short yet.
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
USA
You've just illuminated my light bulb. Thanks. :)
 

Imber Ranae

Ranunculus Iracundus

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Grand Rapids, Michigan
I realize I've substantially hilariously derailed the thread, but to clarify: What I am observing here is the result of Lewis & Short's Latin Dictionary and Perseus' parsing tool, yes?
It's just the parsing tool, albeit with a link to the dictionary. If you click the link you can see the dictionary entry.

The Lewis & Short dictionary is an actual published dictionary (as in dead trees) that you can still buy in book format. It's been incorporated (in digital form) into the databases of several websites run by educational institutions, so that one can immediately look up a word that whatever parsing tool they use may happen to recognize. But sometimes the parsing tools will link to a wrong entry, or fail to find the word at all. That's not the dictionary's fault.
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
USA
Imber Ranae, you seriously need to make a sticky about the functions of L&S versus those of Perseus. ;)
 

Imber Ranae

Ranunculus Iracundus

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Imber Ranae, you seriously need to make a sticky about the functions of L&S versus those of Perseus. ;)
I'm not sure what it should say, other than that the Lewis & Short dictionary is just that, a dictionary (first published in 1879, btw), and doesn't have any kind of lookup tool separate from whatever website is hosting it. It isn't even properly a digital dictionary, but rather just a print dictionary that's been digitally scanned and uploaded to Perseus (and multiple other websites), with added hyperlinks and such.

Even the text as given on Perseus's site has the occasional error which doesn't exist in the printed versions, probably due to failures in the scanning technology that was used to upload it.
It seems the errors are part of the printing, then, and not Rocit's fault. Other versions of the text don't contain these errors.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
It seems the errors are part of the printing, then, and not Rocit's fault. Other versions of the text don't contain these errors.
I think it has other errors, though; adornatis audaciam verbis and itaque make less sense to me than adornatis ad audaciam verbis and utique.
 

Aurifex

Aedilis

  • Aedilis

  • Patronus

Location:
England
I'm not sure what it should say, other than that the Lewis & Short dictionary is just that, a dictionary (first published in 1879, btw)
Ignis' puzzlement is probably symptomatic of the computer generation he was born into; a generation that finds it hard to think of a book on paper as having a legitimate independent existence.

A paper L&S was the only L&S we had, Ignis, until relatively recently, and you had to manhandle its bulk and try and decipher its microscopic print every time you wanted to look something up. The only bonus was that the effort involved in looking a word up acted as a stimulus to remembering it - or that was the theory. Liddell and Scott was (no, is) even bulkier and more unwieldy.
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
USA
Ignis' puzzlement is probably symptomatic of the computer generation he was born into; a generation that finds it hard to think of a book on paper as having a legitimate independent existence.
Aurifex, you couldn't have spoken truer words. My entire life revolves around computers and electronic technology in general, for that matter. My inherent analytical nature probably also contributed to this puzzlement.
 

Rocit

Member

PACIS PUELLA, thank you SO MUCH for your great help in translation!!!
I made some corrections, but there are 2 fragments I still don't get the sense of:
"often even error is a nuisance" - why "nuisance"? How did "obest" turn into a "nuisance"? And what do you think may be the idea of it?

"chalenging hazards, when those are undoubtedly absent"
"cum utique illa absunt"
It makes absolutely no sense to me, could you clarify it to me?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Ignis, thank you SO MUCH for your great help in translation!!!
Ahem, it's actually me who did the translation.
"often even error is a nuisance" - why "nuisance"? How did "obest" turn into a "nuisance"? And what do you think may be the idea of it?
Obesse means "to be a nuisance", "to be prejudicial", "to hinder"... Perhaps another word would than "nuisance" would sound better there, I don't know. See definition:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=obsum
"chalenging hazards, when those are undoubtedly absent"
"cum utique illa absunt"
It makes absolutely no sense to me, could you clarify it to me?
It means that they pretend and make as if they were ready to face dangers, but they do this only when they know that dangers are actually absent, because in fact they're afraid.
 
Top