4.1215 Rs: Scott; Bernard; Hood; UNIX; Copyright (5/114)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Mon, 8 Apr 91 19:10:59 EDT

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 1215. Monday, 8 Apr 1991.


(1) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 91 23:04:39 EST (32 lines)
From: elli@ikaros.harvard.edu (Elli Mylonas)
Subject: Re: 4.1207 ... Liddell-Scott

(2) Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1991 10:51:00 EST (40 lines)
From: Hans Rollman <hans@kean.ucs.mun.ca>
Subject: RE: 4.1204 Queries: Bernard

(3) Date: Fri, 05 Apr 91 16:33:28 EST (8 lines)
From: gene davis <EWD100N@oduvm.cc.odu.edu>
Subject: Tom Hood

(4) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 17:01:06 -0400 (22 lines)
From: Joel Goldfield <joel@lambada.acs.unc.edu>
Subject: UNIX concordance packages

(5) Date: Fri, 05 Apr 91 00:10:57 MST (12 lines)
From: Andrew <ASACC@ASUACAD>
Subject: Re: 4.1198 US Supreme Court: Copyright Decision

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 91 23:04:39 EST
From: elli@ikaros.harvard.edu (Elli Mylonas)
Subject: Re: 4.1207 ... Liddell-Scott

I replied directly to Douglas DeLacy about the Liddell Scott
lexicon that Perseus contains. However since some replies have
also appeared on Humanist, I thought it would be best to send a public
note as well.

We have the Intermediate Liddell Scott Dictionary (out of copyright)
and are using it in Perseus as part of our philological tools.
That is, it is intergrated with the output of the morphological
parser (Morpheus) so that any word in a Perseus text can be looked
up in the dictionary. We have also inverted it; a user can search for
all Greek words in whose definition an particular English word appears.

I should warn people that at the moment, this exists only within Perseus,
and not as an independant system. Within Perseus, the lexicon is stored
in a database, and accessed through HyperCard.

We think that it is a great idea to send create a separate system that
contains only our philological tools, but have been too busy building
Perseus to take on another minor project.

I do not know of any other version of the Liddell Scott that is online,
and i do know that the Big LSJ 9 is under copyright to Oxford.

Hope this helps --Elli Mylonas, Managing Editor, Perseus Project

PS. Perseus is based at Harvard, but is being developed by scholars
at a number of universities in the United States, so it is not
strictly a Harvard project!!

(2) --------------------------------------------------------------52----
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1991 10:51:00 EST
From: Hans Rollmann <hans@kean.ucs.mun.ca>
SUBJECT: RE: Thesaurus Sancti Bernardi Claraevallensis

My colleague David N. Bell, a specialist in Bernard and Cistercian
matters, has checked the THESAURUS SANCTI BERNARDI CLARAEVALLENSIS
for you. The saying IS NOT from Bernard. He also checked Augustin
and Gregory. It's not there either. It sounds to him like a
proverb, and he suggests to check Walther, LATEINISCHE SENTENZEN
UND SPRICHWOERTER. It could also possibly be pseudo-Bernard.

DR. HANS ROLLMANN; Associate Professor; Department of Religious
Studies; Memorial University of Newfoundland; St. John's, NF,
Canada A1C 5S7;
E-Mail: HROLLMAN@MUNUCS.UCS.MUN.CA or HANS@KEAN.UCS.MUN.CA
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------21----
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 91 16:33:28 EST
From: gene davis <EWD100N@oduvm.cc.odu.edu>
Subject: Tom Hood

Will Professor Whitaker, who requested information on the Victorian
writer Tom Hood, please contact me for information.
(4) --------------------------------------------------------------34----
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 17:01:06 -0400
From: Joel Goldfield <joel@lambada.acs.unc.edu>
Subject: UNIX concordance packages

In reply to Ken Steele's query about UNIX concordance packages, I've
heard good things about Open Text System's PAT & LECTOR products
(Waterloo, Ontario). I'm about to test them for the Textual Studies
Workstation I'm configuring on an RS/6000 here at the Institute for
Academic Technology. We're also working on an implicit, "expert system"
package for doing conceptual and associative querying with various
stylo-statistical tools available (z-scores, factor analysis, multiple
regression, t-tests, etc.; frequency dictionaries, on-line thesauri,
autohor-specific lexicons and thematic/conceptual thesauri). It will,
we hope, work with LECTOR and PAT and a similar, less robust explicit
indexing tool written in UIL. A working prototype is projected for late
May.

Regards,
Joel D. Goldfield
Institute for Academic Technology
U. of North Carolina/Chapel-Hill
919-560-5031
(5) --------------------------------------------------------------18----
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 91 00:10:57 MST
From: Andrew <ASACC@ASUACAD>
Subject: Re: 4.1198 US Supreme Court: Copyright Decision

So, I guess this means that we are all buying the notion that there are
"objective facts" out there to be recorded. There seem to be a few bits
of ontological and epistemilogical thought that would throw a damper on
the "logic" of this decision. Who's going to decide what constitutes "a
fact." The obvious answer is "the courts." What makes them the
privledged purveyors of reality?

-Andrew