19 LexiLine Newsletter 2002 Langenscheidt Routledge Dictionary
- View SourceDear LexiLiners,
This provides you with some more information about the LexiLine list
owner and moderator, whose works are included in LexiLine
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
- 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
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
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
"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"
"probably the forerunners of the valley temples"
"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
"Many such documents are perhaps best regarded as semi-fictional
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.