(lat.ls.perseus-eng1.xml) small typo fixes

[lcerrato]

user report 12/9/15

A couple of suggested edits to the Lewis and Short entry for “apud” 5:

1. In designating the author of a work or of an assertion, apud aliquem, in, by, in the writings of, any one (the work itself being designated by in with abl.; as, de quā in Catone majore satis multa diximus, Cic. Off. 1, 42, 151: “Socraiem illum, qui est in Phaedro Platonis,” id. de Or. 1, 7, 28: “quo in libro,” id. ib. 1, 11, 47)

EDIT 1: Socraiem is a typo; read Socratem

EDIT 2: And the source of the cited passage, “Socraiem illum, qui est in Phaedro Platonis,” is Cic. de Or. (1.28; maybe that is Cic. de Or. 1, 7, 28 in some text numbering systems). The punctuation in the excerpted entry (and elsewhere in this dictionary entry) seems, to me, to make the attribution of passage to source unclear, on first reading. Maybe replace the colons with semicolons? Like this:

1. In designating the author of a work or of an assertion, apud aliquem, in, by, in the writings of, any one (the work itself being designated by in with abl.; as, de quā in Catone majore satis multa diximus, Cic. Off. 1, 42, 151; “Socraiem illum, qui est in Phaedro Platonis,” id. de Or. 1, 7, 28; “quo in libro,” id. ib. 1, 11, 47)

confirmed. fixed typo; stet on formatting as this runs throughout this work

[lcerrato]

user report 12/16/15
I found what appears to be an error in Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04
0059%3Aentry%3DNabdalsa

where two entries seem to be listed as one:

Nabdalsa -ae m, a Numidian general's name and
nabis -is f (or nabun -is) f. a camelopard (giraffe)

confirmed

[lcerrato]

user report 4/17/16
On this page
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontrarius

Under "contrarius", in section I.B.2.c.
Should
"on the conirary"
be
"on the contrary" ?
Minor typo, but a typo nonetheless.

confirmed

[lcerrato]

user report 7/26/16

I hope this email finds you well, and that you will not mind my writing to you directly after so long. I still use and enjoy the resources you and your colleagues have put together quite a lot. I found a small erratum in the Perseus edition of L&S and I hope I have not overlooked a more appropriate way to report it. In the definition of orca, here:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dorca1 the Greek etymology is given as ἄρχα, an oblique form of ἀρχή; but obviously this is a scanning or typing error for ὔρχα, which literally means jar. This can be seen (with a little squinting) in the scanned version here:
https://archive.org/stream/LewisAndShortANewLatinDictionary/lewisandshort#page/n1947/mode/2up

I am not sure this is something that can be fixed, but since it is extremely rarely that I find any erratum at all in Perseus I thought I would write to see.

note: the page says ἄρχα
https://archive.org/stream/LewisAndShortANewLatinDictionary/lewisandshort#page/n1289/mode/2up
need to indicate correction with correct tags

[lcerrato]

user report 4/29/17

Hello,

I found typos in the Lewis-Short Latin dictionary. All occurrences of
the Greek letter δ (Delta) are digitised as σ (Sigma) in the entry of
'autem'
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dautem).
I suspect this may be an overall digitising fault.

fixed all

[lcerrato]

mofesta should be molesta in entry for inhumanitas