30 days return. Buyer pays for return postage. If you use an eBay delivery label, it will be deducted from your refund amount.
Condition:
Very GoodVery Good
Publisher: Oxford University Press ISBN 13: 9780198642282. Title: The Pocket Oxford Latin Dictionary Item Condition: used item in a very good condition. Books will be free of page markings. Will be clean, not soiled or stained.
Oops! Looks like we're having trouble connecting to our server.
Refresh your browser window to try again.
About this product
Product Information
This is a revised edition of the Routledge Latin Dictionary (1913), updated and revised by James Morwood. The dictionary now reflects recent philological changes to the language, and includes botanical and Church Latin, along with a Latin Grammar.
Needed a basic English Latin Dictionary and this is ideal, never taught Latin at school but it is the basis of all plant names, so is just what I needed
I visit a lot of churches and struggle to read the latin inscriptions. This book gives you a means of translating latin texts without needing to know all the grammer.
Words missing from the Latin-English include "hebdomas" (week) and "coxa" (hip), though both are in the English-Latin section. The lexicographer says he is seeking to produce a dictionary of Golden Age Latin, and even puts forward the view that he would have liked to replace all Latin letters "u" with "v" as this was the original orthography. Presumably hebdomas and coxa are not actually attested in the Golden Age corpus. I don't think most users of a Latin dictionary want this sort of restriction. Many of the later accretions are in fact wanted.
The dictionary includes a few grammar notes. A few more pages would help. A pocket dictionary is likely to be used by people who don't have a Latin grammar.
All the small Latin dictionaries seem to have an English-Latin section. What does anyone actually do with this? Hardly anyone is trying to write in Latin. It seems to be an attempt to mimic the style of modern foreign language dictionaries.
The problems (as I see them) seem to be with the intention of the dictionary. It seems to be a Golden Age Latin dictionary which nonetheless treats Latin as if a living language that people will wish to write in. Surely there is an inconsistency here.