Think it over twice
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.
Best Latin Dictionary So Far
All you Latinists out there, you need this dictionary. I bought a copy because I got tired of not finding enough words in my Collins Concise Latin Dictionary. Not only does OLD contain every word I've ever tried to look up (my scope isn't as scholarly as some people here), it lists every single variation in meaning, however slight, of the word, citing example sentences from Classical Literature. This came in handy when I was reading Petronius, whose vocabulary is often obscure and unique to himself. OLD shows the general meaning and the specific meaning. This becomes especially important in very compact, "general" words like "ago, agere", "facio, facere", etc. Collins Concise listed "facio" with a couple of different "generalized" definitions followed by idiomatic expressions of the word. OLD spans two pages for that entry with just about every single way you can use it. Pretty comprehensive. I don't use any other dictionary besides OLD now, except when I need to look up an English word to translate into Latin. Even then, I have to make a heavy reference to OLD for what context to use words, like the difference between "celeritas" and "velocitas". A pocket dictionary might list the two words under "speed" but this is not very helpful if you're about to write accurate Latin prose. Furthermore, OLD is very readable. I can't tell you how many times I just open up a page in the middle and start memorizing as many words as I can for pleasure. Every budding Latin scholar should make heavy use of this dictionary.
OLD - an appreciation
For depth and scope of reference, the OLD remains the criterion by which all others in it's field may be ranked.
it's definitions are clear and comprehensive, though limited to classical Latin from the beginning of the language to approximately the end of the second century AD.
within each section words are defined in their earliest known contexts,
with changes in meanings listed in chronological order, as in the OED.
drawbacks:
(1) print is small, (2) book is ponderous;
(3) it's scope ends as the Christian Era begins.
mitigating factors:
(A) the print, though small, is clear - a magnifying-lens solves the problem.
(B) the tome was intended to be a comprehensive, single-volume reference
to classical Latin, an objective which it achieves;
if it's print were expanded to 12-point type, it would occupy a shelf,
and
(C) if the OLD treated the Christian era with the same thoroughness as the classical, it's volumes would fill a room; so much for portability.
all things considered the OLD remains best in it's field,
at least until it's published in digital format on CD.
The only real choice for anyone who is serious about classical Latin
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.
could you find another more trusted dictionary?
I think editors of this book have the unchallenged right to boast the Chinese cliche" SHEWOQISHUI" (who can be counted for except me). You are to suffer a disgrace of depriving your bookshelf of this big reference book if you are a Latinist. Buy it now, linen cover and solid binding assures its endurance.
As a dictionary aiming at Latin language in its classical period, OLD traces every word in its actual appearance in classical texts with full provision of detailed nuances of various usages as well as etymology. Rare words even have their statistics indicated(it will tell you how many times it appears under whom......).
When using this dictionary you should adapt to something whimscal, such as using "i""u" as consonantal "j""v", thus you will see "iugum""ueritas"......Anyway we are going Romans.....
(20 reviews)
