LSJ error and Logos lemma and tagging error

It appears to me that the citation in LSJ from Plutarch's Romulus for "runaway slave" being a meaning of apostatēs might be incorrect. I think that the word that is translated for apostatēs is "fugitives"; the word for "slaves" in the sentence occurs 2 words earlier -"oiketōn." I post both the English and Greek of Romulus below, from the Logos Perseus resources.

LSJ:

ἀποστάτης [τα], ου, ὁ, deserter, rebel, ἀ. τοῦ βασιλέως Plb.5.57.4, cf. Wilcken Chr.10 (ii b.c.), Plu.Cim.10; seceder, SIG705.41,50 (Delph., ii b.c.).

II. runaway slave, Plu.Rom.9; ἀ. κύων runaway dog, Id.2.821d.

III. Lat. apostata, apostate, Cod.Theod.16.7.7. ἀποστᾰτικός, ή, όν, of or for rebels, rebellious, θράσος Plu.Rom.7. Adv. -κῶς, ἔχειν to be ready for revolt, Id.Pel.15: Comp. -ύτερον, φρονούντων PLond.2.354.6 (i. b.c.); -κῶς πράττειν τοῦ λόγου Chrysipp.ap.Gal.5.406. II. disposed to exfoliate, of bones, Hp.Fract.25, Antyll.ap.Orib.6.1.6. III. Rhet., belonging to ἀπόστασις b.1.6; -κόν, τό, Hermog.Id.1.10; σχήματα ibid., Aps.p.259 H.; λόγος Eust.1389.28. Adv. -κῶς Id.635.58. ἀποστάτις [τᾰ], ιδος, ἡ, pecul. fem. of ἀποστάτης, ἀ. πόλις Lxx1Es.2.18, AJ11.2.1.

Plutarch - Romulus 9 [2] But perhaps it was necessary, now that many slaves and fugitives gathered about them. either to disperse these and have no following at all, or else to dwell apart with them. For that the residents of Alba would not consent to give the fugitives the privilege of intermarriage with them, nor even receive them as fellow-citizens, is clear, in the first place, from the rape of the Sabine women, which was not a deed of wanton daring, but one of necessity, owing to the lack of marriages by consent; for they certainly honoured the women, when they had carried them off, beyond measure.

[2] ἦν δʼ ἴσως ἀναγκαῖον, οἰκετῶν καὶ ἀποστατῶν πολλῶν ἠθροισμένων πρὸς αὐτούς, ἢ καταλυθῆναι παντάπασι τούτων διασπαρέντων, ἢ συνοικεῖν ἰδίᾳ μετʼ αὐτῶν. ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἠξίουν οἱ τὴν Ἄλβην οἰκοῦντες ἀναμειγνύναι τοὺς ἀποστάτας ἑαυτοῖς οὐδὲ προσδέχεσθαι πολίτας, ἐδήλωσε πρῶτον μὲν τὸ περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἔργον, οὐχ ὕβρει τολμηθὲν ἀλλὰ διʼ ἀνάγκην, ἑκουσίων ἀπορίᾳ γάμων· ἐτίμησαν γὰρ αὐτὰς ἁρπάσαντες περιττῶς.

Also, Logos morphologically tags ἀποστατῶν as being a nominative masculine singular participle from the verb apostateō instead of the noun apostatēs.

Unfortunately, I can't report this as a "typo" so this is the way I'm bringing attention to this.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

Eric, it would be more productive to send this direct to Logos at logosfeedback@logos.com

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

It appears to me that the citation in LSJ from Plutarch's Romulus for "runaway slave" being a meaning of apostatēs might be incorrect.

The Logos version of LSJ matches the print.

Also, Logos morphologically tags ἀποστατῶν as being a nominative masculine singular participle from the verb apostateō instead of the noun apostatēs.

Unfortunately, I can't report this as a "typo" so this is the way I'm bringing attention to this.

The data in the Logos resource is correct according to what we have received from the publisher.

If you right-click this word, you'll note that it has multiple morph codes attached; this appears to be an editorial decision, not a typo.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529079#Comment_529079

It appears to me that the citation in LSJ from Plutarch's Romulus for "runaway slave" being a meaning of apostatēs might be incorrect.

The Logos version of LSJ matches the print.

Also, Logos morphologically tags ἀποστατῶν as being a nominative masculine singular participle from the verb apostateō instead of the noun apostatēs.

Unfortunately, I can't report this as a "typo" so this is the way I'm bringing attention to this.

The data in the Logos resource is correct according to what we have received from the publisher.

If you right-click this word, you'll note that it has multiple morph codes attached; this appears to be an editorial decision, not a typo.

I agree that the Logos version of LSJ matches the print edition. I'm suggesting that the print edition may be in error - I guess it depends on the sense that kai has. It would be interesting to see what other translations of Romulus 9 say.

I did not see that the other - i.e., the correct - lemma is also given. All I glanced at was the first one it defaulted to. Thanks!!