Re: Which Lexicon to complement LJSM+Glare

From: Jeffrey Gibson (
Date: Tue Feb 11 1997 - 21:13:53 EST

On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, lakr wrote:

> I just received my LJS last night and am starting to get to know it
> better. One thing I noticed is that when using a copy of Lampe Patristic
> Lexicon at the library the title page made reference to a relationship
> between it and the LJS, saying that some Patristic words would not be
> in Lampe if they were in LJS.
> I was looking up prwtoktistos. Lampe has many more references than LJS. How
> many lexicons do I need to use to get the maximum information on
> words like these ?
> Sincerely,
> Larry Kruper
It depends what you mean by "maximum" information. If you mean a full
sense of the semantic range of a given word, then LSJ, BAG, and Lampe should
suffice IF,
that is, you are looking for the range from Homer through the end of the
Patristic period. (and even here there are some reasons to believe that
the meanings attributed to a word in a given lexical entry are sometimes
guesses or off base, or have been filtered through some doctrinal or
semantic biases). But if by "maximum information" you mean
full attestation of every instance of usage, there is no combination of
lexicons that will do this for you, at least with every word you look up.
That is not a lexicon's job. For this you must consult the TLG and the
Papyrus and Inscription discs. Be aware, however, of two things. We have
only a fraction of the literature written during any of the periods you
may be interested in (with some periods faring better than others). And
the current TLG disk (D) does not contain all that is in the TLG
databanks. It is helpful, therefore, if you are citing statistics in a
word study from the TLG that you note to your readers which disk your
have used.

Jeffrey Gibson

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:05 EDT