Oxford Latin Dictionary Incomplete

Has anyone else purchased the Oxford Latin Dictionary, 2nd edition, and found that it is incomplete? For example, the only entries under "V" are proper names. I emailed Logos support a long while back (perhaps two years or more ago) and was told that they were working on it.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

SineNomine

I don't have it, but surely you're not the only one on the forums who has it...

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1145785#Comment_1145785

I doesn't look like it's missing anything.

It looks like in the print edition the letters "U" and "V" are combined into a single entry but in our edition they're split into separate entries. This is due to how the publisher provided us materials to convert the resource into a Logos Edition. If memory serves me we used the files they use for an online source and follows the separate "U" and "V" paradigm.

David Dickenson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1146394#Comment_1146394

I will attach a screenshot. The U and V entries are indeed separate. The problem I am having is that the V entries are limited to capitalized words (mostly proper names but also, for instance, adjectives based on a name). I have tried to type in various words to search for entries that should be there (ventus, for instance), and the entry is simply absent from my dictionary.

The screenshot shows the table of contents on the left with the U entries appearing normally in groups, but the V entries with only the single, capitalized entries.

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147168#Comment_1147168

I don't have the OLD so I can't check but what happens if you open the ventus entry in another Latin dictionary. Are you able to right arrow / left arrow to the OLD entry for ventus?

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147168#Comment_1147168

This is related to how the publisher organized the entries, and based on my extremely limited knowledge of Latin, how they handled the interrelated letters "u" and "v". As you noticed most proper names are spelled with a "V" whereas all other entries are spelled with a "u". This means "ventus" would be spelled "uentus". This is true in the print as well. The main difference between the online and print is online (which we followed) u/v are split out into two separate letters "u" and "v" and in the print they're alphabetized and grouped under the entry "u, v".

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147178#Comment_1147178

This is related to how the publisher organized the entries

Ditto in CAD ... else the user is moving frustratingly between volumes (hardcopy).

David Dickenson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147178#Comment_1147178

OHHHH.... I see now. Thank you. This solves my "problem."

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147177#Comment_1147177

I don't have the OLD so I can't check but what happens if you open the ventus entry in another Latin dictionary. Are you able to right arrow / left arrow to the OLD entry for ventus?

I'm interested in the answer to this question as someone who might eventually purchase the OLD.

David Dickenson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147302#Comment_1147302

I checked and I was not able to right/left arrow over from "ventus" in another dictionary to "uentus" in OLD. My Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament has the entry "uentus," so I could arrow over to and from OLD for that entry. My Elementary Latin Dictionary, which has "ventus," would not go to OLD "uentus."

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147313#Comment_1147313

I checked and I was not able to right/left arrow over from "ventus" in another dictionary to "uentus" in OLD. My Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament has the entry "uentus," so I could arrow over to and from OLD for that entry. My Elementary Latin Dictionary, which has "ventus," would not go to OLD "uentus."

That is both exactly what I expected and extraordinarily annoying.

Faithlife, if you're reading, this is an area where we really need better support for Latin. (Specifically, for text tagged as being in Latin, the letters "v" and "u" should be treated as interchangeable. As a stopgap measure, a lot of the benefit could be supplied by treating the "u" or "v" at the beginning of Latin words as interchangeable.)

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147380#Comment_1147380

That is both exactly what I expected and extraordinarily annoying.

Faithlife, if you're reading, this is an area where we really need better support for Latin. (Specifically, for text tagged as being in Latin, the letters "v" and "u" should be treated as interchangeable. As a stopgap measure, a lot of the benefit could be supplied by treating the "u" or "v" at the beginning of Latin words as interchangeable.)

Agreed that this is a huge hole in their tagging and needs to be better.