> 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)”.<p>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.
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.
> 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”.<p>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.