Oxford Latin Dictionary

Greg Masone said:

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 !

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.

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.

George Somsel said:

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

Tom Reynolds said:

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.

George Somsel said:

Tom Reynolds said:

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)]

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]

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

It's available again.

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.

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

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

Second:

Matthew C Jones said:

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.

David Knoll said:

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.

David Knoll said:

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.

David Knoll said:

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 said:

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.

David Knoll said:

Rosie Perera said:

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.

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.

Kent Hendricks said:

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.

George Somsel said:

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

[Y] X 10

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.

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. 

Matthew C Jones said:

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.

Matthew C Jones said:

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. 

George Somsel said:

 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?

Tom Reynolds said:

George Somsel said:

 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?

Believe me, I "feel your pain" since I also waited that long.  In addition I had the rug pulled out from under me on Crum's Coptic Dictionary.