Latin Dictionaries: Short Lewis compared with Oxford

[Ilya R. Lapshin]

Latin Dictionary Founded on Andrew's Edition of Freud's Latin Dictionary by
Charles Short Lewis, Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short (Contributor)

vs.

Oxford Latin Dictionary by P. G. Glare (Editor)

Can anyone describe the relative merits, flaws, good and bad
features of these two monumental volumes. I am considering
buying one of them.

Thanks,

Ilya

[Phillip David Weaver]

The Oxford Latin Dictionary was conceived of before WW II, but not begun
until after the war, and is by far the superior work because of its more
efficient presentation of the information, though both dictionaries cover
the same, classic works. The Lewis and Short book is the old bible, so to
speak. Phillip.

--
http://home.att.net/~philippo/index.htm
Ilya R. Lapshin <il...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:ilyal-02069...@10.0.2.15...

[Phillip David Weaver]

I have the Pocket Oxford Latin Dictionary (1994), the D.A. Kidd
Latin-English, English-Latin Dictionary (1969), the Lewis-Short Latin
Dictionary (first impression 1879, this impression 1993), and the Oxford
Latin Dictionary (1982). For English-to-Latin I now go online to the Perseus
Lewis-Short Dictionary
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/lexindex?lookup=verro&db=ls). I also
have the Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon (first edition 1843), which also can be
found online at Perseus.

[Michael Tinkler]

The Oxford is easier to read -- what a lovely design! -- but if you need
to use it for any later authors the Lewis & Short is much more helpful.
If you've got a nice, patristic-reading Carolingian author the Lewis &
Short is almost all you need. I don't remember just off hand where the
Oxford stops citing examples, but it's shamefully early, as though they
believed the medieval Latin dictionary would EVER be finished! It's a
UNESCO project, after all . . . .

-----Michael Tinkler.