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.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?
I realize I've-snip-
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.I realize I'vesubstantiallyhilariously 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.I realize I'vesubstantiallyhilariously 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?
You've just illuminated my light bulb. Thanks.
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.Imber Ranae, you seriously need to make a sticky about the functions of L&S versus those of Perseus.
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.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.
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.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)
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.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.
Ahem, it's actually me who did the translation.Ignis, thank you SO MUCH for your great help in translation!!!
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:"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?
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."chalenging hazards, when those are undoubtedly absent"
"cum utique illa absunt"
It makes absolutely no sense to me, could you clarify it to me?