Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

19 LexiLine Newsletter 2002 Langenscheidt Routledge Dictionary

Expand Messages
  • earlofeden12
    Dear LexiLiners, This provides you with some more information about the LexiLine list owner and moderator, whose works are included in LexiLine newsletters.
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 1, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear LexiLiners,

      This provides you with some more information about the LexiLine list
      owner and moderator, whose works are included in LexiLine
      newsletters.

      For those of you out there who are both English and German-speaking,
      it may interest you to know that I was a member of a team of four
      authors for the just published 2002 revised version of the
      Langenscheidt Routledge Dictionary of Business, Commerce and Finance
      English-German German-English, 1230 pages, ca. 60,000 terms both
      ways, i.e. a total of ca. 120,000 terms (not just single words, but
      many terms of art and phrases).

      We worked hard to make this the finest dictionary of its kind in the
      world. The CD-ROM which appears in October, costs 175 Euros (one
      Euro is about the same as one US Dollar). The book at present is
      still listed at the Langenscheidt website at 99 Euros. Routledge
      does not yet list it. Libri.de does. I do not know if this price
      will be maintained in the future.

      In German the book title is: Langenscheidt Routledge Fachwörterbuch
      Wirtschaft, Handel und Finanzen.

      As a book the ISBN is 3-86117-191-0
      As a CD-ROM (first available in October) the ISBN 3-86117-208-9

      See http://www.langenscheidt.de/deutsch/
      - Langenscheidt is the world's largest dictionary maker -
      and then click the option Neuerscheinungen and then the option
      Langenscheidt Fachverlag - which brings you to the page with the new
      publications ....

      Since we surely have few German speakers on this list, this of
      course is not advertising but just information for you as list
      members. You should be aware that my areas of responsibility for
      this dictionary include law, patents, enviroment, travel and
      tourism, and information techonology (all very much "law-related") -
      including the internet. I know this stuff, much as I know the
      megaliths.

      Without meaning to be disparaging, I myself as a dictionary author
      look at entries in other dictionaries for comparison, such as "The
      British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt", to see "what is really
      known", so e.g. under the entry "Khasekhemwy" where we find the
      following RELATIVE text excerpts, all in ONE short article about
      Khasekhemwy:

      "probably his son"
      "it has been suggested"
      "perhaps also political"
      "probably an excessively historical explanation"
      "what may have been an iconographic phenomenon"
      "debate...hinges partly on the question"
      "The picture was once believed to be"
      "was thought to refer to another ruler"
      "depictions...have been interpreted as evidence"
      "generally considered"
      "probably the forerunners of the valley temples"
      "generally considered"
      "poor excavation...has hindered any more definite statement"

      Do these people know what they are talking about? NO.

      When we look under "literature", it is written in that same work:

      "Throughout the Pharaonic period it is often difficult to
      distinguish between fictional narratives and accounts of actual
      events, and part of this problem stems from a general inability to
      recognize the aims and contexts of particular texts."

      What happens in the course of time in Egyptology, however, is that
      all of these unclear texts, suppositions and assumptions creep into
      the mainstream literature, are cited by scholars, citing their
      cronies and professors, and then are quoted LATER as fact - even
      though originally such alleged facts were just nice suppositions,
      supported by little or no evidence, and to which generally no new
      supporting knowledge had been added.

      As written further under "literature" in the British Museum
      Dictionary:
      "Many such documents are perhaps best regarded as semi-fictional
      works...."

      And so also should one regard Egyptological dictionaries, as "semi-
      fictional works", whatever that means. When the Egyptologists KNOW
      what they are writing and defining, the definitions and explanations
      will look different than they do now.

      When you look to have Khasekhemwy "defined" properly , you will find
      that best at http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi762.htm

      When the British Musuem Dictionary "definition" writes of
      Khasekhemwy that "The depictions of slain enemies on the two statues
      [one statue shown at the LexiLine pages] have been interpreted as
      evidence of military activities during his reign", you can toss such
      nonsense straight into the wastebasket. The Egyptologists on that
      score do not know what they are talking about.

      Enjoy,
      Andis
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.