THESAURUS LINGUAE LATINAE PDF

adminComment(0)

Thesaurus Linguae Latinae is the largest and most detailed Latin dictionary in the world: You can find further PDF documents underneath the browse menu. Suchhinweise Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. (English version below). Schnellsuche. Die TLL-Schnellsuche dient dazu, direkt gewünschte Stellen im Thesaurus. The Thesaurus Linguae Latinae is a monumental dictionary of Latin founded on historical Print/export. Create a book · Download as PDF · Printable version.


Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Pdf

Author:DENNY DREYFUS
Language:English, Portuguese, Arabic
Country:Bosnia Herzegovina
Genre:Lifestyle
Pages:436
Published (Last):10.03.2016
ISBN:232-8-39950-582-1
ePub File Size:24.89 MB
PDF File Size:11.66 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Register to download]
Downloads:39633
Uploaded by: JAMMIE

Title, Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Volume 3. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Robert Estienne. Publisher, Harding, Original from, the Bavarian State Library. 'Der Thesaurus linguae Latinae erarbeitet das erste vollständige geändert worden sind und werden (die Addenda indici sind auch als PDF verfügbar). Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Compendiarius. Download PDF Ausführliches lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch Book. A Complete Latin-English Dictionary for.

The TLL and the Sustaining of Scholarship gesture in Roman culture is never an empty signifier but conveys, deliberately or not, information about its bearer. For example, the first occurrence of the word, and therefore by Thesaurus practice the first citation given in the main body of the article, effectively establishes this notion Ter.

Such a presentation allows the user to see at a glance the significance that gestus has, like vultus, in reading intention. My next example concerns Roman mouths.

Item Preview

The article os, oris has particu- lar resonance for me since this word gave me something to talk about during the interview that led to my Thesaurus Fellowship. By this proclamation Dr.

Flury meant that no single entry in the lexicon is to be taken as objective and infallible; rather, as with any work of scholarship, each article is the product of human subjectivity, regardless of the care that goes into selecting examples and devising the framework within which they are laid.

My own experience, however, leads me to invert Dr. Here the resemblance to an oracle becomes most clear. Fortunately, this turned out to be a relatively recent volume, with the fascicle containing os first published in Although allegedly a Latinist, I had had no prior introduction to the work, but since I was a doctoral candidate with a deadline, I was interested more in pillaging tendentiously than in understanding thoroughly.

As I gazed perplexedly at nineteen pages of tightly-spaced Latin, where about every fifth word was an unfamiliar abbreviation, I was blessed by fortune. The editors Anthony Corbeill had decided in this case to include an outline of the article, which allowed my first entry into this formidable work note: with the electronic edition a mouse click can now access the outline of any article.

This section provided preliminary lexical support for my claim that the Roman mouth possessed unique significance in ascertaining the characteristics of a face and that, in the hands of a capable orator, the mouth can dominate and define its bearer Corbeill —4.

This discovery led me to another section of the article, one that demon- strates how a TLL entry can provide significant information about syntactic matters as well as semantic.

At this moment TLL became a point of departure. I could not have reached this conclusion without the impetus and direction provided by the TLL. The material read- ily fell into two basic categories: conceptual crookedness I potius spectat ad ea, quae animo percipiuntur and literal crookedness II potius spectat ad ea, quae sensibus percipiuntur.

The Latin rubrics make clear that both meanings could coexist in one word, thereby providing further evidence for the extent to which Latin terms are embedded in a tangible perception of the world. Opening the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae reveals not a series of prescriptions, but a wide-open book. Varieties of Cultural History.

Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Corbeill, A. Controlling Laughter. Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic. The retail prices listed by Saur are: Since the Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina CD, which is also published by Saur and is listed on the same page as the one from which I ordered the TLL, 3 requires that the CD always be inserted in the computer in order to use the software, I assumed and feared that the same would be true of the TLL.

So I was annoyed at first to discover that I was sent the multiple CD version by mistake, but immediately relieved to discover that swapping around the CDs is only necessary on installation; all of the data can be installed on the hard disk, and accessed from there. This is an important point, since any requirement to access a database from a CD or DVD would render it much less useful, especially in an open computer room used by students; experience with the Teubner disk bears this out.

The minimum system requirements are allegedly Windows 98 or better on a Pentium I with MB of memory MB or more is recommended and a little under 3 GB of disk space, when the TLL data and the search software and its prerequisites are added together.

This is a five-year-old computer, and so it is not surprising that the TLL runs quite slowly on it see below for specifics , even though it handsomely exceeds the stated minimum specification; I suspect that it would be excruciatingly slow on an older machine. Installation was straight-forward, and the instructions are clear; the process requires administrator rights.

English and German versions of the user interface are provided. In addition to the search software, version 6 of the Internet Explorer browser is installed if it is not present already.

A special-purpose font called "TLL" is also installed. During installation, you have the option of installing the Thesaurus data themselves this is on disk 3 if you have the CD version. Most users will want to make sure to do this, to take advantage of the greater speed and convenience of accessing the data from the hard disk, rather than the CD. In addition to the single-user prices quoted above, Saur advertises network prices: I did not know about this when I ordered the TLL, so I have not tried a network installation, but the instructions that come with the disk s explain how it is supposed to work.

Essentially, you go through the same process as for a single-user install in the case of each client machine, except that the database itself can be shared among the clients. In these days of large, cheap hard disks, that is not really much of an advantage. On the other hand, having to install specialized software for each client machine is painful, particularly on a large, heterogeneous network, such as found in most universities.

It means that, if the operating system needs to be reinstalled on any of these computers, the TLL software probably needs to be reinstalled as well. This is the sort of time-consuming scenario that a client-server model is supposed to avoid. Fortunately, a different approach is possible; see below.

It should be noted that it might be possible to run the TLL on a non-Windows machine by using virtualization software, which allows the user to install a copy of Windows that runs within a non-Windows operating system. Saur claims that it has heard reports of success in getting the TLL to run on a Mac by means of this technique, but this option is not for the faint of heart.

Rather than beginning at the top, with a discussion of the interface that the user sees when the program starts up, we will proceed from the bottom up, and start with a look at the way the digitization project was carried out, and how the data have been stored. At one point the TEI was officially involved with an abortive attempt to digitize the TLL, which seems to have come to nothing, but perhaps it is due to that influence that the XML used in the Saur project has its present shape. One of these stylesheets ttsarticle.

This is essential for checking references to the precise column and line of a given entry, which is the standard mode of citation for the TLL.

There is a second stylesheet ttsoutline. This is where the advantage of having the TLL in an electronic form is most evident, in my view.

Index librorum scriptorum inscriptionum ex quibus exempla afferuntur

The structure of a typical TLL entry though less consistently so in the earlier volumes is deeply nested. Computers are very good at dealing with such data structures, and indeed XML itself is an example of such a structure, but humans can find them difficult to work with. In other words, the TLL divides citations into large semantic groups, then each group is divided into sub-groups, which may be divided into sub-sub-groups and so on, often down to more than a dozen or so sub-levels; this is in contrast to a work like the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which gives a long, mostly flat list of definitions.

One of the difficulties in consulting the printed TLL is keeping mental track of all of these levels. They are distinguished by varying the style of enumeration, but the lack of indentation can make it hard to see which level is subordinate to which. On the computer screen, where limitations of page length do not apply, the outline mode of the electronic TLL affords a much more synoptic view of each entry.

Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Том 3

Anyone who has consulted the Perseus Project on-line version of the Lewis and Short Latin lexicon or the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek lexicon 5 will be able to appreciate the advantage of reading an entry in which progressive levels of indentation and ample vertical space allow the structure to become more manifest than can be afforded on the printed page.

In addition to showing the internal structure of each entry via indentation, paragraphing and labeling, the outline view includes little boxes next to each sub-heading, which can be used to hide or display the contents of that section, thus folding away from view those parts of the entry that are not of interest. This provides a much clearer picture of the structure of each entry than the printed edition can do, and is a major boon.

The third stylesheet is used to present a "citation view" of the raw XML data. This is a list, alphabetical by author, of all of the citations listed in a given entry. This will be extremely valuable in cases where you want to find out whether the TLL categorizes the particular bit of text you are interested in and, if so, where.

At the moment, you have to either skim through the whole entry or guess where the citation might be.

The former is not practical with very long entries, and the latter is a problem when the very reason you are consulting the TLL is that you do not understand the usage of a word in a particular context. Because it attempts to categorize each and every interesting usage of every word in the texts it covers, the TLL is a commentary of last resort.

If you want a second opinion on the usage in a particular instance, and the commentaries do not exist or let you down, the TLL entry, if it has been written for your word, very likely has something to say.

The TLL is not an absolute authority -- if you look hard enough at the categorization of just about any of the citations, you can develop an argument that it really belongs in two or more categories.

The metaphorical play with semantic boundaries that is essential to poetic discourse can be at odds with the lexicographic methodology of the TLL, if rigidly applied; and increasingly its editors have acknowledged and accommodated this sort of ambiguity.

Nevertheless, there is a very good chance that, when you are facing a bit of interesting or obscure usage, the TLL will have registered the opinion of some intelligent person on what the word means in this context. You may not agree, but having another opinion is invaluable, whether it is to suggest the correct answer, or simply to provide a way of clarifying one's own views by contrast.

The problem with treating the TLL thus not as a dictionary but as a vast but specialized commentary on the whole of classical Latin literature lies in the difficulty, except in short entries, in locating a given citation within the text. This problem has now been removed by the electronic TLL.

In fact, even without the citation view, this would be possible by opening the entry in article view and then using the search functionality of your browser to look for the ancient author and work in question. The citation view, however, is a much cleaner and more straight-forward way to get this information, and it also provides a handy list of all of the other citations of the word from a given author and work included in the present entry.

Citation view also gives a convenient overview of the distribution of usage across works and authors, but an additional stylesheet to present these in chronological as well as alphabetical order would be welcome. To quibble, there are a few small ways in which the encoding and presentation of the data might be improved.

You might also like: OPEN MULTI PAGE PDF

One easy change would be to add yet another stylesheet, which would provide a printable view, just like the article view, but with more printer-friendly settings. Printing the article view from Internet Explorer requires ensuring that one prints only the frame in which the article appears e.

The names of entry compilers, which are right-justified at the end of the article, are in this way invariably cut off. This is an easy change, but an important one, as most people who need to consult an entry intensively would probably prefer to do so on paper.

The pages of the printed TLL need to be reduced in size to photocopy onto standard sized paper, and since the fascicles are usually bound into massive volumes, photocopied text near the spine is often illegible. Library copies of the printed TLL often feature cracked spines, torn pages, and broken covers, much of which is probably due to photocopying, a practice which could be superseded by printing articles from the electronic edition. Thus, in the citation "VERG.

This would have been a difficult problem to solve, as can be seen if we look at the more complicated citation "SERV. Figuring out how to standardize systems of reference for ancient texts is a big problem, and it is easy to see why Saur did not feel that this was its problem to solve; thus it just took the easy way out. The shame of it is that a system of marking up precise citation information would have provided the opportunity of hyperlinking the electronic TLL to a database of Latin texts, such as the Teubner database, which is also published by Saur.

At the moment, clicking on a TLL citation brings you to the entry for that work in the TLL Index Librorum, so that you know from what edition of the text the citation was taken. This is useful, but still more useful would be a link to the passage in the original text. Another example of a smaller problem arising from the lack of markup within the location information is that the sorting order in citation view is alphabetical, which is fine for the names of authors and works, but it is not right for the mainly numerical locations within each work.

A variety of crude XSLT fixes for this are possible, but these will only work in some cases, and a proper solution would require a hierarchical markup scheme for all of the TLL citations see appendix below. To sum up, the electronic TLL provides new ways of using the tool that either were not possible or were very cumbersome with the printed text.

The three "views" of each entry are valuable because they work in harmony with the way each entry itself has been structured by its compiler, exposing his or her intent more clearly than was possible on a crowded printed page that could only offer one view of the data. Furthermore, Saur is to be commended for having implemented this functionality on top of an excellent technical infrastructure, which could hardly be bettered.

Of course, the excellence of the technical infrastructure of the electronic TLL is only meaningful if the massive job of digitizing the text of the printed TLL and marking it up was done well. It seems fair to say that the accuracy of the electronic version is excellent, especially given the intricacy and scope of the project. Naturally, there are some errors, but I only discovered one small patch where the accuracy was seriously amiss. I proofread at random one entry from each of the ten volumes, chosen from entries at least one column long, and generally fitting on one printed page for ease of photocopying.

Here are the articles I proofread and the errors of transcription I found:. It would be wrong to draw any sweeping conclusions from such a minute sample, but it is perhaps not surprising that some articles have been proofread slightly better than others. Overall, the standard of transcription is extremely high, and the errors are minor.

There was one surprise.

I deliberately included "ominor" in my survey, since that article had fairly lengthy addenda, on account of a section having been left out of the original printing of the fascicle in which it appeared.

In Luehken's review of the first edition of the electronic TLL, he noted problems here p. In this edition, the addenda and corrigenda are handled well. I looked at this text simply to make sure that the electronic TLL included such addenda; I did not expect it to be any more or less well proofread than any other part.

What I found was that the original text of the "ominor" entry was perfect, but the text of the 18 lines of addenda to that entry was proofread to a much lower standard than anything else I looked at:.

It may be that this text slipped through the net because it was an addendum, but it is also possible that other patches of poor proofing may exist in other parts of the TLL. A few conclusions can be drawn from the observation that the standard of proofreading is excellent but not perfect.

The first is that the electronic TLL cannot substitute entirely for the canonical printed version, and so libraries who subscribe to the former should not give up their subscriptions to the latter. Another is that there should be some easy way for readers to report errors of transcription to the publisher.

One of the advantages of an electronic edition is that such errors can very easily be fixed, if there is a will to do so. In his review, Luehken pointed out a few typos, and these still have not been corrected in the third edition.

Knowing that I was in the process of writing this review, Professor Harry Hine contacted me to report that he had found the entry for the word "circa" missing in his copy of the electronic TLL. He then contacted Saur, who checked, and acknowledged that it had been omitted mistakenly from version 3; they explained that this and 11 other words had been kept to one side for technical reasons, and had been inadvertently omitted from publication.

These words are: In an exemplary reaction, Saur has undertaken to provide HTML files of each of the missing entries in their three viewing modes article, outline and citation to anyone who has bought the third edition of the electronic TLL and asks for them; these missing entries will be included in the next electronic edition.

In response to a query about this problem, Saur said that it had done a thorough inventory of all the lemmata, and that these twelve were the only ones that were missing. Just to double-check, I put together a long list of Latin words, mostly derived from the Perseus version of the Lewis and Short Latin lexicon, removed the proper names and words beginning with "n" and letters from "p" to "z", and looked to see if any of these words were missing from the electronic TLL.

The only ones I found to be missing were already on Saur's list of twelve, so this offers some support to the claim that there are no other entries missing, though it should be said that my checklist was derived from a much smaller collection of lemmata than in the TLL. As mentioned above, the TLL entries are presented in the form of three different HTML views, and it must be said that the layout of these web pages is not as pleasing to the eye as it could be, but these problems can be easily fixed.

In subjective order of severity these are: Clearly, this strategy has advantages, as it ensures that the user is able to display the macrons and breves, and the polytonic Greek, Hebrew, and other non-Latin characters that the lexicon contains in abundance.

On the other hand, it also has its drawbacks. Firstly, this is not a particularly well-hinted font, so it looks jagged on the screen when compared with the standard Microsoft fonts, which are laboriously and expensively hinted to display very smoothly on screen. Secondly, the TLL font does not come with italic or bold variants, so this sort of formatting, with which the lexicon abounds, is displayed wrongly or not at all.

The problem is less acute than it might be, since Internet Explorer substitutes an oblique roman typeface to compensate for the lack of italic. Thus the information conveyed by the use of italic is not lost, but aesthetically it is not the same thing at all compare the shape of an italic "a" with a roman "a" that has been artificially slanted.

Many readers might not be able to identify this problem precisely, but would nevertheless perceive the resulting lack of polish and professionalism in the output. The absence of bold text is likewise not fatal, since outline view can help to point out the structure of the entry even more clearly than bold face but, since the HTML markup indicates the text that should be bold, it would be nice if the browser would display it that way. The user does have a way of "fixing" these problems; namely, to un-install the TLL font and force the browser to fall back to using Times New Roman.

In this way, you get to see the TLL with true italics and with bold, but you will not see any special, non-standard characters that the TLL font uses to convey information.

The most important of these is the crucial asterisk sign which looks a bit like two baguettes crossed in an "X" , with which the TLL indicates an article that does not give a comprehensive report of all of the citations of a word found in the texts covered by the lexicon.

This is bad practice, and at the very least, Saur should have used one of the Unicode "private use areas". Even better, Saur could have substituted in the TLL font their special asterisk for a vaguely similar-looking Unicode symbol e. One could argue that providing a special-purpose font is not necessary for most users; indeed, one of the purposes of the Unicode standard was to make such special-purpose fonts obsolete.

Most Latinists in this day and age are very likely to have a computer configured with a Unicode font able to display polytonic Greek, Hebrew, Latin vowels with macrons and breves, and the more usual ancient scripts; even if the user has not installed fonts especially for this purpose, modern operating systems now come with very comprehensive Unicode fonts as standard.

Saur should try to make the TLL work better with the Unicode fonts the user already has installed, rather than insisting on installing a special-purpose one.

Thesaurus Linguae Latinae

It should still, however, provide the TLL font for those users with older computers that may not have such fonts already installed. Another aesthetic problem with the HTML output is the way letter-spaced text is displayed. Definitions in the TLL commonly use for emphasis lower-case text with larger than normal inter-word spacing, a practice once widespread in Germany, though now universally decried as an abomination against legibility.

It is rarely found in modern texts, so it is not surprising that Internet Explorer does a poor job of displaying it, even though it is allowed for in Cascading Style Sheets CSS , which are used to specify the way the HTML pages are displayed by the browser. The problem, quite apart from the inherently poor legibility of letter-spaced lower-case text, is that the intra-word spacing is so close to the inter-word spacing that it becomes very hard to know where one word ends and the next begins.

Likewise, punctuation inside letter-spaced text is also spaced out, so commas and such float between two words. The obvious solution to this problem is for the browser automatically to increase the inter-word spacing in and around these words by a similar proportion, and to treat punctuation specially. Unfortunately, at present, only Internet Explorer can be used with the TLL, unless you are willing to go through a fair bit of manual fiddling each time you look at an entry.

The limitations of Internet Explorer IE are present in other ways, too. When there is a superscript in a citation, such as the number of an edition, this throws off the inter-line spacing, and the line number, if any, is displayed next to a blank line. Other browsers handle this just fine. On the other hand, the column number and line number, which are displayed in a column on the left side of the screen, are both run together as one number, which is quite annoying.

In IE, the numbers are separated by a space, as they should be, but this only happens because of a bug in that browser. It is wrong to rely on non-standard behavior, and doubly so to rely on a bug in a particular version of a particular browser, as it is entirely possible that later versions of IE will fix this behavior.

As it happens, the fix for this problem is trivial. The XSLT processor included with IE removes stray whitespace by default, but not all processors do so, so this should be specified explicitly. Despite these easy-to-fix flaws, it should be emphasized that, by and large, the HTML output of the TLL is not tied to the peculiarities of Internet Explorer, and displays correctly on any modern browser, though there may be a few quirks in some of the advanced features.

For example, the little boxes in outline view that were mentioned above, which tell you whether the given level of the outline is expanded with a minus sign or collapsed with a plus sign and which toggle their state when clicked, are implemented with JavaScript.

In addition to Internet Explorer, I tested them on some non-Windows browsers; they work perfectly on Mozilla Firefox, but have some problems on Konqueror. The conclusion is that there is no major technical obstacle to making a version of the TLL which displays its HTML output on any computer that connects to it via a modern browser; there is no good reason that the TLL should be tied to users of the Internet Explorer browser or indeed of the Windows operating system.

When the user requests an article, the required XML file is not retrieved directly from the disk, but rather from a zip file within which that XML file is stored. Text files such as these XML files compress very well, so this is a reasonable step to take, in order to save disk space on the user's computer. The XML files making up the TLL, which number over 70,, are stored in compressed form in a set of 13 zip files, which most users will have installed on the hard disk.

These are not ordinary zip files, though; they are password protected, so that the user cannot view the contents of any of the XML files they contain.

This is a peculiar step to take.

If this encryption was added in an attempt to prevent unauthorized copying of the software by those who have not paid for it, it is an ineffective measure.

There is nothing to stop a person from taking the installation media and copying the data by the more straight-forward method of going around to another computer and installing it in the normal way. If the password-protection was added in an attempt to keep the data secret from commercial competitors, the measure is equally weak. The variety of encryption used in zip files was demonstrated to be fundamentally insecure in a well-known paper by Biham and Kocher.

Software that implements the techniques of that paper to reveal the passwords of zip files is easily available on the Internet. If encrypting the zip files does not prevent unauthorized pirating of the software by users and does nothing more than slow down for a few hours a competitor who wants to view the XML source files, then why bother? I do not have an answer for that question, but I can point to the costs of the decision to do so. It means that a project which consists almost entirely of text files, which have been encoded in an open and cross-platform manner, all of a sudden requires specialized client software if those files are to be accessed.

Any modern web browser can take an XML file and an XSLT stylesheet and combine them into a web page for the user to view; they cannot do this, however, if that XML file is locked up in a password-protected file. Thus, Saur has to provide the user with a special-purpose program to access the TLL; this program turns out to be vast, bug-ridden and monstrously complex; on account of its complexity, it becomes impossible to port it to another platform; thus the TLL is available only for Windows.

Fortunately, as we will see, this overly complex, Windows-only user interface in fact adds little of value, and so it could easily be jettisoned by most users. When you start up the TLL program on your Windows computer, you do not see a web browser, as the focus of the comments above might imply; instead you see a bewildering collection of tick-boxes, text entry fields and result output areas, which looks as if a demented programmer had tried to see how many widgets he could fit on one screen.

I would not be surprised if technophobic Latinists simply shut the program down on first sight and gave up on the electronic TLL as unintelligible and unusable.

If you persevere, the complexity of the user interface is mitigated somewhat by the thorough on-line help, which explains the use of just about every element on every screen. When you inspect the opening page more closely, you will see that there is a series of "tabs" identifying screens you can choose from:. The one you are currently looking at is the "Full Text" search page, which is the last thing most users will want.

Of all of these tabs, the first is the only one the vast majority of users will ever need to use.This is where the advantage of having the TLL in an electronic form is most evident, in my view. This is an important point, since any requirement to access a database from a CD or DVD would render it much less useful, especially in an open computer room used by students; experience with the Teubner disk bears this out. See http: The problem, quite apart from the inherently poor legibility of letter-spaced lower-case text, is that the intra-word spacing is so close to the inter-word spacing that it becomes very hard to know where one word ends and the next begins.

Saur, One easy change would be to add yet another stylesheet, which would provide a printable view, just like the article view, but with more printer-friendly settings.