Oxford Latin Dictionary

Does anybody know what happened to this resource?

It's been in development since at least 2007, and I just noticed today that its missing from the Logos website! Can't find it at all.

It actually still shows up on my Open Pre-Pub Orders list, but the link to it is broken.

Here is a cached page from Google for it: Oxford Latin Dictionary

Surprise, surprise ! I get a message that it is "no longer sold." Rats !

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248774#Comment_248774

Does anybody know what happened to this resource?

It's been in development since at least 2007, and I just noticed today that its missing from the Logos website! Can't find it at all.

It actually still shows up on my Open Pre-Pub Orders list, but the link to it is broken.

Here is a cached page from Google for it: Oxford Latin Dictionary

Surprise, surprise ! I get a message that it is "no longer sold." Rats !

My guess is that the Oxford Latin Dictionary along with Crum's Coptic Dictionary are simply too difficult for Logos. I don't think they have it in them. That's probably the reason they gave up.

BUMMER, Now how am I going to read Summa Theologica in the original?

Crum's Coptic Dictionary still shows in my list. I'm keeping it there as a matter of faith. Hebrews 11:1

I was planning on putting Oxford Latin Dictionary back on my list. Today is a bittersweet day. Barnes Notes ships while O.L.D. dies.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248790#Comment_248790

No way! Second to Anchor Yale Reference Library, that is the next thing I've been anxiously awaiting.

DMB

Well, before fgh was right about resourses/dates were not reliable. This time I had an inkling from my post a couple days ago, that OLD wasn't for real. It was too far off, given the trouble Logos seems to be having with OUP.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248799#Comment_248799

This time I had an inkling from my post a couple days ago, that OLD wasn't for real. It was too far off, given the trouble Logos seems to be having with OUP.

The fact Oxford Latin Dictionary moved from "Gathering Interest" to
"Under Development" status makes me wonder if it is another case of the
publisher lacking vision for the future rather than a lack of
interest on our part.

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248782#Comment_248782

My guess is that the Oxford Latin Dictionary along with Crum's Coptic Dictionary are simply too difficult for Logos. I don't think they have it in them. That's probably the reason they gave up.

Are you trying to motivate them George? I think that Phil 4:13 would work better . No one has said they received an email notifying them that this resources has been canceled so I think there's still hope.

Tom

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248803#Comment_248803

Hopeful is indeed a good thing.

"We're sorry! That is not a product we currently sell." (clicking my order)

But it's still in my orders list; at least until Monday or so, I guess.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248803#Comment_248803

Are you trying to motivate them George? I

Would I do a thing like that? [H] Look at this innocent face and tell me that you can still think that.

Shhhh ! You're letting the cat out of the bag.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248806#Comment_248806

I've requested an answer from Logos on this via email and asked for the answer to be posted in this thread for all to see.

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248806#Comment_248806

Are you trying to motivate them George? I

Would I do a thing like that? Look at this innocent face and tell me that you can still think that.

Shhhh ! You're letting the cat out of the bag.

You'll have to take off your sun glasses George, I can't see the whites of your eyes! [:|] or [^o)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248808#Comment_248808

and asked for the answer to be posted in this thread for all to see.

The answer has finished "gathering interest" and is "under development."

It will be released "soon." [6]

This could have been a great resource. [:(]

Still it is nice of Logos to let us know. I ordered this product and now I know that I should look for a different solution. [Y]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248859#Comment_248859

Still it is nice of Logos to let us know.

As of now, they haven't let us know anything really. It's just suddenly and inexplicably disappeared from the website, but it still shows up in our pre-pub carts:

And if you click on that link, it takes you to this page:

I'm still awaiting an answer and hoping that there's just been some mistake. This book seems too important to simply abandon with no explanation. Perhaps the Collins Latin Dictionary and Grammar will have to suffice. But it is pitiful compared to the Oxford one. Just for comparison, here's Collins:

ā prep (with abl) from, after, since, by, in respect of; ab
epistulīs, ā manū
secretary; ab hāc parte on this side; ab
integrō
afresh; ā
nōbīs
on our side; ā tergō in the rear; cōpiōsus ā frūmentō rich in corn; usque
ab
ever since.
ab prep see ā
abs etc see
ā

And here's what Oxford has for that same preposition (around two full pages):

Hapax Legomena

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248860#Comment_248860

I hear there's a new guy at Oxford University Press who wants to renegotiate the contract.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248860#Comment_248860

This book seems too important to simply abandon with no explanation. Perhaps the Collins Latin Dictionary and Grammar will have to suffice. But it is pitiful compared to the Oxford one

Collins is more of a glossary. I don't use it.

OLD has its downside as well. It only covers Classical Latin. In that respect Lewis and Short though old could be more appropriate for most of Logos' users. Lewis and Short is in the public domain. That is not to say that I wouldn't love to have the OLD. I ordered it, but let's keep things in perspective. Latin is an important language for Christian literature of the middle ages. Logos is bound to integrate a decent Latin lexicon at some point. It is inevitable.

James W Bennett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248861#Comment_248861

It's available again.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248864#Comment_248864

It's available again.

Hi, James. Not sure what you mean by "It's available again." What is? Still seeing the "we're sorry" page when click on Oxford
Latin Dictionary link in pre-pub orders page, and search for Oxford
Latin Dictionary on Logos's home page turns up nothing.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248861#Comment_248861

I hear there's a new guy at Oxford University Press who wants to renegotiate the contract.

Oh dear, If this is true. I await clarification from Logos but this is sad, really sad. I hope this is not a new trend with publishers wanting to revisit contracts that have already been signed.

Ted

Hapax Legomena

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248873#Comment_248873

I hear there's a new guy at Oxford University Press who wants to renegotiate the contract.

Oh dear, If this is true. I await clarification from Logos but this sad, really sad. I hope this is not a new trend with publishers wanting to revisit contracts that have already been signed.

Ted

I have no idea. This has been the purported reason that the AYRL has been delayed. It seems mighty strange that the OLD which has been in pre-pub for years (and has enough interest to be in development) would suddently be pulled.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248889#Comment_248889

Maybe the Oxford folks heard a rumor Latin is a dead language. [6]

With all recent Latin resource releases from Logos I doubt they really have a problem getting them produced as George taunts (thanks for trying George). And I don't think it is a lack of support on the potential buyers side. I'd suspect it is somehow related to the Oxford folks.

Here is a snippet of an Amazon review for the OED V4 on CD.

And that is a 5-star reviewer's statement. I would suggest Oxford farm out ALL of their digital publishing to Logos if they want a quality release. Oxford does a fabulous job on the content side of things.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248864#Comment_248864

It's available again.

Can you tell us where?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248900#Comment_248900

First of all for your Latin resources, check this out. It's free:

http://athirdway.com/glossa/download.html

Second:

Here is a snippet of an Amazon review for the OED V4 on CD.

And that is a 5-star reviewer. I would suggest Oxfor farm out ALL of their digital publishing to Logos if they want a quality release. Oxford does a fabulous job on the content side of things.

This was a copy protection measure. The fourth version which is under review does not require the insertion of the CD every 90 days and it works perfectly. There is no need for mudslinging. We don't even know if this was a breach of contract. Besides when you throw stones you should always consider whether you might be living in a glass house.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248900#Comment_248900

With all recent Latin resource releases from Logos I doubt they really have a problem getting them produced as George taunts (thanks for trying George).

They'll simply have to produce it in order to prove me wrong, won't they? [6]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248902#Comment_248902

This was a copy protection measure. The fourth version which is under review does not require the insertion of the CD every 90 days and it works perfectly. There is no need for mudslinging.

Sorry you took my praise for Logos' superior ability in digital publishing to be some kind of mud slinging. I gave credit to Oxford for their content. They are good at creating quality reference works. But I bet Starbucks brews a better cup of coffee.

I was one of the unfortunate victims of the very expensive older edition of the OED "copy protection" (that they did not warn their buyers about in advance.) I could not afford many hundreds of dollars a second time for another 90 day "demo." It is nice to know you got what you paid for in OED Version 4. And good of you to point out the Amazon reviewer is precise in criticizing Oxford's first 3 attempts as falling short. My snippet was to demonstrate why Oxford needs Logos to produce their Latin Dictionary. I think the snippet accomplishes the purpose.

We don't even know if this was a breach of contract.

I took BradN 's post as a joke comparing it to the Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library that does have some "talking" going on. Maybe Brad was serious (Ted seems to think he was.) I would not accuse Oxford or Yale of a a serious legal transgression such as "breach of contract." Oft times two parties need to sit down and clarify their agreement. I am hopeful AYBRL will be published this summer after a friendly chat with Logos. At least AYBRL is still on our Pre-Pub list. Oxford Latin Dictionary looks less promising I want both to succeed.

Besides when you throw stones you should always consider whether you might be living in a glass house.

Oxford successfully published the OED in only 4 version tries over one decade. I will quickly agree I could not do that in 4000 tries. I just think the Latin Dictionary would come to digital fruition quicker with Logos publishing it that waiting on Oxford. (Even if it has been on Pre-Pub since 2009!

James W Bennett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248901#Comment_248901

It's available again.

Can you tell us where?

My mistake, I didn't notice that the link in the top post was a link to a page that was Google cached. Interestingly, the Google cached page let me order the OLD as a pre-pub Logos had probably better look into that as a potential bug.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/249021#Comment_249021

My mistake, I didn't notice that the link in the top post was a link to a page that was Google cached. Interestingly, the Google cached page let me order the OLD as a pre-pub Logos had probably better look into that as a potential bug.

I just placed it back on my Pre-Pub list. (Thank you James.) Could this be another great sales ploy on Logos' part? If it gets enough new orders this weekend maybe they will publish it. Miracles do still happen; consider Barnes Notes.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/248808#Comment_248808

I've requested an answer from Logos on this via email and asked for the answer to be posted in this thread for all to see.

Any news?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251067#Comment_251067

I've requested an answer from Logos on this via email and asked for the answer to be posted in this thread for all to see.

Any news?

No reply to my email so far.

Jacob Hantla

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251117#Comment_251117

I really wanted this one too.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251119#Comment_251119

Peace to all!

*smile*

I really want this one also! And I'm still hopeful.... Just looked and it's still in my pre-pub orders.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251130#Comment_251130

I really want this one also! And I'm still hopeful.... Just looked and it's still in my pre-pub orders.

I don't want to shake anyone's faith but I still have Crum's Coptic Dictionary in my Pre-Pubs and it has been gone a L-O-N-G- time [:'(]

Kent Hendricks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251137#Comment_251137

We have been unable to license the Oxford Latin Dictionary, so we pulled it from the Pre-Pub page for now.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251159#Comment_251159

We have been unable to license the Oxford Latin Dictionary, so we pulled it from the Pre-Pub page for now.

Is there any connection between the "inability to license" the copyrighted Oxford Latin Dictionary and the withdrawal of the public domain Crum's Coptic Dictionary? I notice both are published by Oxford.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251159#Comment_251159

We have been unable to license the Oxford Latin Dictionary, so we pulled it from the Pre-Pub page for now.

Thanks for letting us know.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251159#Comment_251159

We have been unable to license the Oxford Latin Dictionary, so we pulled it from the Pre-Pub page for now.

This surprises me. I would have thought they would have the license in hand before offering it on prepub. How about Lewis and Short ? It's public domain.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251186#Comment_251186

How about Lewis and Short ? It's public domain.

[Y] X 10

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251186#Comment_251186

This surprises me. I would have thought they would have the license in hand before offering it on prepub.

I would expect a license to have a specified length of time in which it had to be released ... slow sales could equal lost of license. Of course, the nice thing about my expectations is that they are based upon no known facts whatsoever. [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251216#Comment_251216

Isn't Latin one of the few languages that has not changed in the last 500 years? Is it all that beneficial to have a copyrighted version over a public domain work?

My question is a serious inquiry, I don't know the answer.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251216#Comment_251216

This surprises me. I would have thought they would have the license in hand before offering it on prepub.

I would expect a license to have a specified length of time in which it had to be released ... slow sales could equal lost of license. Of course, the nice thing about my expectations is that they are based upon no known facts whatsoever.

In that case I would fault Logos. It should have been released even prior to the expiration of the license whether or not it was fully subscribed. There are some resources which can be assured to have a continuing demand even when the immediate demand may not be forthcoming.

Hapax Legomena

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251222#Comment_251222

This situation continues the disturbing trend of Logos not having contractual control of the works it offers. This does not bode well for the AYBRL.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251220#Comment_251220

Isn't Latin one of the few languages that has not changed in the last 500 years?

Depends on how you define language. Latin would be on a par with Old Church Slavonic, Avestan and other liturgical languages. While the language may not have changed all that much, our knowledge of building useful dictionaries has improved.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251220#Comment_251220

Isn't Latin one of the few languages that has not changed in the last 500 years? Is it all that beneficial to have a copyrighted version over a public domain work?

Fragments of papyri and new editions of classical texts create some new definitions. OLD contains many quotaions much more than Lewis and Short. That being said, OLD cannot be used for texts that are Post-Classical (200 AD and later). Most Logos users will not use it to read Julius Caesar, Catullus or Tacitus. Lewis and Short is the right solution for people reading the Vulgate for instance.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251258#Comment_251258

While the language may not have changed all that much, our knowledge of building useful dictionaries has improved.

Good point.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251276#Comment_251276

Isn't Latin one of the few languages that has not changed in the last 500 years?

Most official Catholic Church documents are still written in Latin, there's a Latin Wikipedia, and I believe a guy in Finland is broadcasting in Latin, so the vocabulary has certainly had to be updated since then in order to cover everything from stem-cell research to multinational corporations to the internet. And considering that Catholic seminary education tended to take place in Latin until not so very long ago I imagine the oral language has evolved as well. In fact, the Second Vatican Council was conducted entirely in Latin; only the ecumenical guests were allowed interpreters, the bishops were not.

That said, it seems the OLD only covers pre-200 AD Latin, which would make it a less than ideal fit for my needs, no matter how modern the scholarship is. In so far as I look at Latin at all, it's going to be Church Father, Medieval and Modern Ecclesiastical Latin, not Julius Caesar. So it certainly sounds as if this Lewis and Short would be better, preferably together with something really modern, like the Vatican's dictionary. And if Logos gets more Medieval Latin works in the future, J. F. Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus might be useful. Seems to be from 1976, so it's fairly modern, and later editions seems to include corrections as well as definitions in both English, French and German.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251318#Comment_251318

In so far as I look at Latin at all, it's going to be Church Father, Medieval and Modern Ecclesiastical Latin, not Julius Caesar.

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt. Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque humanitate provinciae longissime absunt, minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant atque ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent important, proximique sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt, quibuscum continenter bellum gerunt. Qua de causa Helvetii quoque reliquos Gallos virtute praecedunt, quod fere cotidianis proeliis cum Germanis contendunt, cum aut suis finibus eos prohibent aut ipsi in eorum finibus bellum gerunt. Eorum una, pars, quam Gallos obtinere dictum est, initium capit a flumine Rhodano, continetur Garumna flumine, Oceano, finibus Belgarum, attingit etiam ab Sequanis et Helvetiis flumen Rhenum, vergit ad septentriones. Belgae ab extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur, pertinent ad inferiorem partem fluminis Rheni, spectant in septentrionem et orientem solem. Aquitania a Garumna flumine ad Pyrenaeos montes et eam partem Oceani quae est ad Hispaniam pertinet; spectat inter occasum solis et septentriones.

I remember quite distinctly reading that in high school. I also remember that it was then that the USSR launched Sputnik so we started a crash course in Russian. It really had people "all shook up."

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251323#Comment_251323

It really had people "all shook up."

As shook up as I feel having waited 5 1/2 years for this prepub to arrive only to learn that Logos hasn't obtained a licence for it?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/251323#Comment_251323

proeliis *** Germanis contendunt, *** aut

The innocent little Latin preposition c u m got interdicted by our Puritanical software.