From danielrr@retemail.es Sun Apr 29 08:13:03 2001 Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.9]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.11.2+UW01.01/8.11.2+UW01.03) with ESMTP id f3TFD2963086 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:13:02 -0700 Received: from smtp4s.retemail.es (smtp4.iddeo.es [62.81.186.34]) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.11.2+UW01.01/8.11.2+UW01.04) with ESMTP id f3TFD1v23690 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:13:01 -0700 Received: from [62.174.217.70] by smtp4s.retemail.es (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP id <20010429151259.HYIW2609.smtp4s.retemail.es@[62.174.217.70]> for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:12:59 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: idd00i7w@pop.iddeo.es Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000701c0d040$fe78fc40$82519318@Rourke.ne.mediaone.net> References: <000701c0d040$fe78fc40$82519318@Rourke.ne.mediaone.net> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:12:55 +0200 To: classics@u.washington.edu From: Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ria=F1o?= Subject: Re: Euripides *21 Plays? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Patrick T. Rourke wrote: >Sure, it was a hell of a lot of work, and >folks should be greatful that it was done, but who uses print concordances >anymore? We do every time at the DGE. Sometimes the printed concordances use better editions than the electronic versions, or even lemmatise variants from the apparatus. Usually the printed concordances are lemmatised, but automatic lemmatisation for Greek is very poor yet. Only a small part of all the literary texts are available in the Perseus data bank (the best part of the Perseus text data bank is the non literary Papyri texts: that's really an improvement from the previous situation!). Reading text in paper is probably better for your eyes and it is definitely easier and agreeable that reading it on screen (unless you have serious eyesight problems: in which case the situation may be the opposite if you can adjust the text on screen to be read at, say, 40 point). Occasionally, the printed version of concordances are as uninformative as the electronic ones (I'll refrain from mentioning some...) but more often than not, the printed versions offer some extra information, at least today. I'd say that the best situation is having access to *both* kind of concordances. >Sorry to be hopelessly timebound, but why would anyone need Allen and Itali= e >anymore? What does it do for you that TLG doesn't? (for all but the most >sophisticated purposes - e.g., serious stylometry and searching fragments - >Perseus can serve almost as well) I don't think we have yet neither the annotated corpora neither the available software for the "most sophisticated purposes" in the field of the Classics, but if we are to mention the state of the art tools in the field, then some Biblical software (Accordance) and the CETEDOC CD ROMs should be mentioned first. The first is inexpensive, but the second demands serious institutional finance. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Daniel Ria=F1o Rufilanchas Madrid, Espa=F1a .