First English dictionary of ancient Greek since Victorian era spares no blushes | Hacker News Reader

First English dictionary of ancient Greek since Victorian era spares no blushes

theguardian.com

55 pointsiechoz6H57 comments

> Antiquated and offensive language also gets a makeover. While Liddell and Scott defined βλαύτη (blaute) as “a kind of slipper worn by fops”, in the Cambridge Greek Lexicon it is described as “a kind of simple footwear, slipper”; κροκωτός (krokotos) is no longer defined as “a saffron-coloured robe worn by gay women”, but as a “saffron gown (worn by women)”.

Does anyone else see the irony here? The article claims that these scholars are undoing damage done by prudish Victorian translators, but they're really just creating a dictionary that's prudish in a different way.

I think what the original dictionary did, was describing an ancient term e.g. κροκωτός (krokotos) with a then contemporary occurence i.e. “a saffron-coloured robe worn by gay women”. The latter which may well have been a misconception or prejudice.

“Fop became a pejorative term for a foolish man excessively concerned with his appearance and clothes in 17th century England.”[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fop

They could replace fop with another word that is not pejorative, but why completely remove it?

It's not the actual problem, it's just irrelevant. The reference doesn't make sense to describe the actual kind of shoe. The original description doesn't provide a real distinction about the sandal in question, if there ever was one. The authors seem to have concluded from the works, that it was merely a sandal and that nothing points one way or another about its nature.

Edit,

My reading of the original entry was that it doesn't describe what sandal an ancient Greek equivalent of 'fop' used.

The entry then, must have described an 18th-19th century contemporary feature.

> My reading of the original entry was that it doesn't describe what sandal an ancient Greek equivalent of 'fop' used.

Sure, if that's the case then it doesn't make sense to keep the reference. My reading was that it referred to classical fops.

A dictionary is supposed to clarify meaning. How many people know what the meaning of fop is these days? It’s not very common in books these days. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Fop&year_start...

A synonym for fop in that article is macaroni. If the entry said “a sandal worn by macaroni” it would be extremely confusing for a modern reader.

> How many people know what the meaning of fop is these days?

Yep. the issue seems to be that while Ancient Greek is a dead language, English is a moving target. Since 1889, words like "fop" fall out of favour, words like "gay" acquire a secondary meaning (edit, actually another secondary meaning) that in time replaces the original primary one, changing the reader's perception of a definition.

> How many people know what the meaning of fop is these days?

I don't know. I do, and I'm not a native speaker. And people using Greek dictionaries probably skew towards being pretty well read.

But that's besides the point, since I suggested using some other word if they found "fop" offensive.

The full sentence describing the editing in the article starts with “antiquated and offensive language”, which one might interpret to mean the removed words were both of those things, or one could also interpret that antiquated language and offensive language were removed as two possibly overlapping sets.

The point of the dictionary is to use “contemporary English” since it’s used as a reference in schools. I’ve definitely seen “fop” before but in high school I wouldn’t say it’s something that I could remember without looking it up in a second dictionary, so it’s not that useful of a defining term. All this offensive or nonoffensive is mountains out of a molehill.

Again, my suggestion was to use different words, instead of just removing them.

Also, I don't think any definition of "gay woman" wore saffron coloured robes in Victorian Britain, this is a Classical reference.

"The followers of the so-called Krokotos Painter, whose name is derived from the Greek κροκωτός (krokōtos) (saffron-yellow dress robe). The female figures in his work often wear krokōtoi" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus_Painter

Please keep in mind that when the old dictionary was written, gay simply meant happy.

Gay can still mean that, but in the context it does not.

In which context? In the context in which the dictionary entry was written for English academics in 1889, "gay" most certainly did mean "happy" and not homosexual. "Gay" did not come to commonly mean "homosexual" until decades later.

Grandparent post has the wrong end of the stick: no prudery is being inserted, outdated _English_ that would be misinterpreted by modern readers has been changed. Ancient Greek is a dead language. English is living.

Note that, as others have also pointed out elsewhere, "gay woman" used to mean prostitute.

Right. I have doubts about the academic writer in 1889 using that meaning of "gay", as a phrase it was ambiguous then, and is _differently_ confusing now. Removing it seems like clarity not prudery. Indeed the opposite of prudery, it removes (literally) Victorian assumptions about the wearer of fancy clothes.

The original definition mentions that the sandals were worn by "fops," but the new definition doesn't say anything about an association with effeminate men. So, they're being prudish about bringing up something that can be interpreted as homophobic.

The irony for me is that historians have been purging records of homosexuality and gender nonconformity since time immemorial. To me, this looks like a potential historical record of of queer culture, replete with "queer coding" that we use to identify ourselves to others in the know. Might as well erase it, on the chance it might offend...

True, though not the go to definition people learn towards these days. But it's still in the dictionary as a definition of usage.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gay https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...

The article explicitly says they removed "offensive language". Just like LSJ did, just with a different view of what was offensive.

No, they are removing needlessly fluffy language.

What even is "a kind of slipper worn by fops"? It's far easier to understand it's just a common slipper.

Similarly, I think gay women in this context means "overly" promiscuous. Which is probably what victorians would have though of any woman not wearing a corset.

> Similarly, I think gay women in this context means "overly" promiscuous

No, it does not. "gay" did not mainly mean homosexual until mid 20th century. That dictionary entry was written in 1889; well before that.

Before that the primary meaning was "happy, cheerful, bright"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

From your own wikipedia link:

> By the late 17th century, it had acquired the specific meaning of "addicted to pleasures and dissipations",[12] an extension of its primary meaning of "carefree" implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". A gay woman *was a prostitute*,

I take your point, but I think it a big stretch that in 1889, an academic would use late 17th century slang, not a common word with a simple primary meaning of "bright, happy".

So then the word "gay" has up to three possible meaning to the modern reader, in order of appearance in English: 1) "bright and happy", 2) "promiscuous and slutty", 3) "homosexual".

The last meaning definitely wasn't relevant to ancient Greeks, and I'm not sure about the second.

So removing this confusing Victorian moralising is still not an exercise in prudery at all? As it removes confusion, it is done for clarity, and if it removes moralising it is the opposite of prudery. Grandparent post from JoeyBananas is not correct on that.

https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%89%CF%84%CF%...

It clearly was written having a sexual connotation in the context of the related definition (worn at Dionysian festivals). But note that the editors may infer that this is simply an incorrect definition considering evidence, and opted to remove that part rather than redefine it.

Since you're the only person in the written conversation who has been arguing that it probably meant "happy" in the entry, I won't bother replying to the other comments of yours expressing the same argument.

The point is that it is NOT a common slipper, it's a "foppy" slipper. I remember reading similar passages in Greek where they would denounce some other group for wearing overly decorated clothes etc. This seems to be just that.

> What even is "a kind of slipper worn by fops"? It's far easier to understand it's just a common slipper.

No, if the new lexicon removes useful information, that's bad. Say you read a passage which mentions "Miletus, city of βλαύτη-wearers". With the new definition, all you know is it's a city where people wear simple sandals, which tells you nothing. With the old definition, you understand that the author is saying that Miletus is a decadent city.

Now, if that information is inaccurate, it's not useful, and it's right to remove it. But ease of understanding is not a reason to do this.

> It's far easier to understand it's just a common slipper.

Sure, in exactly the same way that clown shoes are just common shoes, and swastika armbands are just common armbands.

Clothing has a cultural context.

> but they're really just creating a dictionary that's prudish in a different way.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick: "Gay" did not become a common slang term for homosexual until "mid-20th century" (1)

In the context in which the dictionary entry was written for English academics in 1889, "gay" did not not homosexual at all, it meant "bright", "happy" and "cheerful". i.e. that these clothes were colourful "glad rags".

No prudery is being inserted, instead outdated _English_ that would be misinterpreted by modern readers as rude has been changed. Ancient Greek is a dead language, but English is living and changing.

Not to mention, the modern identity of "Homosexual" simply wasn't relevant to ancient Greeks. (2)

> The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier as modern Western societies have done. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greec...

It didn't go from meaning cheerful to then suddenly homosexual. It meant promiscuous and immoral in between.

The victorian dictionary was implying it is a dress worn by a hooker.

from your own source (wikipedia/gay):

> A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, and a gay house a brothel.[2] An example is a letter read to a London court in 1885 during the prosecution of brothel madam and procuress Mary Jeffries that had been written by a girl while slaved to a French brothel:

> "I write to tell you it is a gay house...Some captains came in the other night, and the mistress wanted us to sleep with them."[13]

I take your point, but in 1889 academic English though? The primary meaning was still "happy".

Ultimately though, when translating Ancient Greek to modern English, what the 1889 meaning and moralising was is neither here nor there. It is nothing but confusing, and removing it is not "prudish".

I'll put a higher-level reply in addition to commenting on the multiple people wondering what the original entry meant by "gay". In the Victorian LSJ, the entry [1] was

> as Subst., κροκωτός (sc. χιτών), ὁ, saffron-coloured robe, worn by gay women, Ar.Th.138, Ec.879; as an offering in temples, IG12.386.22, 22.1514.60, 62; worn by Dionysus (or at his festivals) over the χιτών, Cratin.38, Ar.Ra.46; by effeminate men, παρθένος δ' εἶναι δοκεῖ φορῶν κροκωτούς (prob. for κρος-) Arar.4, cf. Callix.2, Duris 12 J., etc.: neut. pl. κροκωτά (sc. ἱμάτια) v.l. in Ar. Lys.44.

https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%89%CF%84%CF%...

So someone familiar with Dionysian festivals is clear that gay was used with a sexual connotation here. And similarly for effeminate men.

But note that many of the other translations don't mention the connection to Bacchus or limit it to "gay women", so one wonders if the evidence actually supports a broader meaning than that.

Referring to a "need" in a pointedly vague way whose meaning had to be inferred from context used to be a euphemistic way of referring to all kinds of biological imperatives. It is important to remember that this use isn't common everywhere. In particular, "do one's need" is unrelated to "do the needful".

This is fantastic news, even if I never had any complaints about Liddell Scott. It’s interesting to note that while they stopped using euphemisms for words like “fuck”, they seemed to have removed references to homosexuality. Different times, different hangups.

You are referring to the bit about "shoes worn by gay women"? I took that to mean "worn by courtesans".

I suppose. But they also censored “worn by fops”…

They didn't censor it, they fixed it. There is no evidence that this slipper was "worn by fops" other than the faulty Victorian dictionary that they were fixing.

Why would it be “faulty”? The paragraph starts out describing how “antiquated and offensive language” was removed.

Why wouldn't it be? Old dictionaries are riddled with errors and mistranslations.

βλαύτη is just a slipper. Not a slipper worn by fops. Not a slipper worn by lesbians. Not a slipper worn by aliens. Just a slipper.

Why do you keep insisting that the Professors are wrong and that this "worn by fops" translation should be retained? Are you an expert in Ancient Greek translation and you're sure they have it wrong?

The article gives βλαύτη as an example of a word whose definition was updated in order to remove offensive language. They're not saying the old definition was incorrect, there is no indication of that.

I'm no expert, but I did study 2 years of full time Greek at uni. I don't specifically about βλαύτη, but I do know that berating effeminate or overly vain men would not be out of character for any Greek author.

The article was written by a journalist. The dictionary was written by the Professors. If they say that their definition is better I'm going with that above both a journalist and a second year student unless you provide something a little more compelling evidence-wise.

Presumably they talked to the editors. I don’t think they opened up LSJ at random, compared an entry to the new version and concluded that the change was made for the sake of political correctness.

I suspect your assumptions are wrong because you don't know many journalists. I have that misfortune. They will have taken the juiciest part of whatever they were told and made a story from it. Facts are entirely secondary.

> The article gives βλαύτη as an example of a word whose definition was updated in order to remove offensive language.

Ackcherly, it says "Antiquated and offensive language also gets a makeover." This may be just the antiquated bit, not the offensive one.

The "gay" of "gay women" did not mean "homosexual" back then, that meaning is not documented even for men before the 1920s, and for women even later: https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/pgc2e4q

What they meant was probably "promiscuous" or in some other form "leading an immoral lifestyle": https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/bzyd5jq

That might make it a bit more plausible why this epithet was removed.

Or, given that 19th c. “gay” had a multiplicity of meanings, the intended meaning might have been something like “women who wore flashy clothes”.

The project homepage: https://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/glp

> This article was amended on 28 May 2021. An earlier version misspelled the Latin βινέω as“βίνέω”. Also, the headline was changed to remove a reference to the dictionary being the “first English dictionary of ancient Greek since the Victorian era”.

When the amendment needs an amendment...

But how accurate is it? Is it diverse and raunchy just for the sake of it? I’ll wait for an actual academic review from somebody who has been in the field for at least 40 years.

The article mentions James Diggle [1] and Robin Osborne [2] as some of the authors. Have you got any specific concerns regarding these two gentlemen?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Diggle

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Osborne

>some of

I’ll wait for a proper academic book review. Anyway this new book that’s being promoted has a paltry number of entries compared to Liddell. Newer is often not better.

Doesn't it aim to compete with the abridged version? At this point, I'm being asked to subscribe, so I won't

I dunno. Does it? You seem to know…

Second paragraph:

> The late scholar John Chadwick first came up with the idea to update HG Liddell and Robert Scott’s 1889 dictionary, the Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, in 1997. An abridged version of a lexicon published in 1843, the Liddell and Scott had never been revised, and is packed with antiquated terms and modestly Victorian translations of the more colourful ancient Greek words. Despite this, it remains the most commonly used reference work for students in English schools and universities.

More accurate than it's predecessor, which seem to have been engaged in willfully obscuring the content matter – not exactly a success for a dictionary of any pedigree.

I don't believe they've been more raunchy or diverse than the ancient greeks themselves were.

>More accurate

This is a claim which still remains to be reviewed by the proper authorities.

Seems it was written by pretty much the proper authorities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com