Does anyone else see the irony here? The article claims that these scholars are undoing damage done by prudish Victorian translators, but they're really just creating a dictionary that's prudish in a different way.

> as Subst., κροκωτός (sc. χιτών), ὁ, saffron-coloured robe, worn by gay women, Ar.Th.138, Ec.879; as an offering in temples, IG12.386.22, 22.1514.60, 62; worn by Dionysus (or at his festivals) over the χιτών, Cratin.38, Ar.Ra.46; by effeminate men, παρθένος δ' εἶναι δοκεῖ φορῶν κροκωτούς (prob. for κρος-) Arar.4, cf. Callix.2, Duris 12 J., etc.: neut. pl. κροκωτά (sc. ἱμάτια) v.l. in Ar. Lys.44.

https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%89%CF%84%CF%...

So someone familiar with Dionysian festivals is clear that gay was used with a sexual connotation here. And similarly for effeminate men.

But note that many of the other translations don't mention the connection to Bacchus or limit it to "gay women", so one wonders if the evidence actually supports a broader meaning than that.

Grandparent post has the wrong end of the stick: no prudery is being inserted, outdated _English_ that would be misinterpreted by modern readers has been changed. Ancient Greek is a dead language. English is living.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gay https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...

“Fop became a pejorative term for a foolish man excessively concerned with his appearance and clothes in 17th century England.”[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fop

"The followers of the so-called Krokotos Painter, whose name is derived from the Greek κροκωτός (krokōtos) (saffron-yellow dress robe). The female figures in his work often wear krokōtoi" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus_Painter

See also: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG59070

Edit,

My reading of the original entry was that it doesn't describe what sandal an ancient Greek equivalent of 'fop' used.

The entry then, must have described an 18th-19th century contemporary feature.

Sure, if that's the case then it doesn't make sense to keep the reference. My reading was that it referred to classical fops.

A synonym for fop in that article is macaroni. If the entry said “a sandal worn by macaroni” it would be extremely confusing for a modern reader.

Yep. the issue seems to be that while Ancient Greek is a dead language, English is a moving target. Since 1889, words like "fop" fall out of favour, words like "gay" acquire a secondary meaning (edit, actually another secondary meaning) that in time replaces the original primary one, changing the reader's perception of a definition.

I don't know. I do, and I'm not a native speaker. And people using Greek dictionaries probably skew towards being pretty well read.

But that's besides the point, since I suggested using some other word if they found "fop" offensive.

The point of the dictionary is to use “contemporary English” since it’s used as a reference in schools. I’ve definitely seen “fop” before but in high school I wouldn’t say it’s something that I could remember without looking it up in a second dictionary, so it’s not that useful of a defining term. All this offensive or nonoffensive is mountains out of a molehill.

What even is "a kind of slipper worn by fops"? It's far easier to understand it's just a common slipper.

Similarly, I think gay women in this context means "overly" promiscuous. Which is probably what victorians would have though of any woman not wearing a corset.

No, if the new lexicon removes useful information, that's bad. Say you read a passage which mentions "Miletus, city of βλαύτη-wearers". With the new definition, all you know is it's a city where people wear simple sandals, which tells you nothing. With the old definition, you understand that the author is saying that Miletus is a decadent city.

Now, if that information is inaccurate, it's not useful, and it's right to remove it. But ease of understanding is not a reason to do this.

Sure, in exactly the same way that clown shoes are just common shoes, and swastika armbands are just common armbands.

Clothing has a cultural context.

No, it does not. "gay" did not mainly mean homosexual until mid 20th century. That dictionary entry was written in 1889; well before that.

Before that the primary meaning was "happy, cheerful, bright"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

> By the late 17th century, it had acquired the specific meaning of "addicted to pleasures and dissipations",[12] an extension of its primary meaning of "carefree" implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". A gay woman *was a prostitute*,

So then the word "gay" has up to three possible meaning to the modern reader, in order of appearance in English: 1) "bright and happy", 2) "promiscuous and slutty", 3) "homosexual".

The last meaning definitely wasn't relevant to ancient Greeks, and I'm not sure about the second.

So removing this confusing Victorian moralising is still not an exercise in prudery at all? As it removes confusion, it is done for clarity, and if it removes moralising it is the opposite of prudery. Grandparent post from JoeyBananas is not correct on that.

It clearly was written having a sexual connotation in the context of the related definition (worn at Dionysian festivals). But note that the editors may infer that this is simply an incorrect definition considering evidence, and opted to remove that part rather than redefine it.

Since you're the only person in the written conversation who has been arguing that it probably meant "happy" in the entry, I won't bother replying to the other comments of yours expressing the same argument.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick: "Gay" did not become a common slang term for homosexual until "mid-20th century" (1)

In the context in which the dictionary entry was written for English academics in 1889, "gay" did not not homosexual at all, it meant "bright", "happy" and "cheerful". i.e. that these clothes were colourful "glad rags".

No prudery is being inserted, instead outdated _English_ that would be misinterpreted by modern readers as rude has been changed. Ancient Greek is a dead language, but English is living and changing.

Not to mention, the modern identity of "Homosexual" simply wasn't relevant to ancient Greeks. (2)

> The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier as modern Western societies have done. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greec...

The victorian dictionary was implying it is a dress worn by a hooker.

from your own source (wikipedia/gay):

> A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, and a gay house a brothel.[2] An example is a letter read to a London court in 1885 during the prosecution of brothel madam and procuress Mary Jeffries that had been written by a girl while slaved to a French brothel:

> "I write to tell you it is a gay house...Some captains came in the other night, and the mistress wanted us to sleep with them."[13]

Ultimately though, when translating Ancient Greek to modern English, what the 1889 meaning and moralising was is neither here nor there. It is nothing but confusing, and removing it is not "prudish".

What they meant was probably "promiscuous" or in some other form "leading an immoral lifestyle": https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/bzyd5jq

That might make it a bit more plausible why this epithet was removed.

βλαύτη is just a slipper. Not a slipper worn by fops. Not a slipper worn by lesbians. Not a slipper worn by aliens. Just a slipper.

Why do you keep insisting that the Professors are wrong and that this "worn by fops" translation should be retained? Are you an expert in Ancient Greek translation and you're sure they have it wrong?

I'm no expert, but I did study 2 years of full time Greek at uni. I don't specifically about βλαύτη, but I do know that berating effeminate or overly vain men would not be out of character for any Greek author.

Ackcherly, it says "Antiquated and offensive language also gets a makeover." This may be just the antiquated bit, not the offensive one.

When the amendment needs an amendment...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Diggle

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Osborne

I’ll wait for a proper academic book review. Anyway this new book that’s being promoted has a paltry number of entries compared to Liddell. Newer is often not better.

> The late scholar John Chadwick first came up with the idea to update HG Liddell and Robert Scott’s 1889 dictionary, the Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, in 1997. An abridged version of a lexicon published in 1843, the Liddell and Scott had never been revised, and is packed with antiquated terms and modestly Victorian translations of the more colourful ancient Greek words. Despite this, it remains the most commonly used reference work for students in English schools and universities.

I don't believe they've been more raunchy or diverse than the ancient greeks themselves were.

This is a claim which still remains to be reviewed by the proper authorities.