[Lexicog] Response to Wayne Leman

[George Aubin]

Dear Wayne:

One of the things that has always struck me about the Lexicography List, and
this may well be a personal reaction on my part that others may not agree
with, is that often only two kinds of dictionaries are discussed, one with
'everything' in it (on the model of the OED), and the other one much more
limited, usually for various teaching purposes.

As a French teacher for over 40 years, I am constantly amazed at the wide
variety of types of dictionaries available in French. Certainly, there are
those dictionaries which attempt to be as inclusive as possible, much like
the OED. But there are also dictionaries which are much more specific in
intent: teaching at various levels, of course, but also slang(s), regional
dialect(s), regional foods, wine, diplomacy, building, the medieval period,
and so on. And what is also interesting is that at least some of what one
finds in the specific dictionaries is sometimes _not_ found in the so-called
'all-encompassing' ones.

Quite a few years ago, I was involved in a European French-American English
dictionary project where various picturesque expressions in one of the
languages had to be translated by an equally picturesque expression in the
other. This was a dictionary of a very specific type which in fact turned
out to be quite popular in France. Thus, the American English expression
'They are as alike as two peas in a pod' could _not_ be translated by the
European French equivalent of 'They resemble one another a great deal'
(Ils/elles se ressemblent beaucoup), but rather by the European French
equivalent of 'They resemble one another like two drops of water' (Ils/elles
se ressemblent comme deux gouttes d'eau). Of course, such a pairing was not
always possible. Two examples. We never came up with a picturesque European
French equivalent of 'They nickled and dimed him to death', nor were we able
to translate in an appropriately picturesque way into American English de
Gaulle's declaration following a political setback 'Ils sont allés à la
soupe' (literally, 'They went for the soup', but it's strong, not monetary,
and quite dismissive in French).

I realize that we linguists involved in dictionary making for Amerindian
groups or other equally small groups around the world have a sometimes
daunting task, particularly given the difficulty of finding really good
consultants to help us along in our fieldwork. And even after we have a
handle on a particular language, it is often difficult to find native
speakers who can or will help us to determine what the difference is between
two apparent synonyms or in what context a certain expression is _not_
appropriate. Individuals acutely sensitive to language are rare in any
group, it seems. Our job is certainly not an easy one ...

But I would like to suggest that we consider perhaps a bit more seriously
the idea of _multiple_ dictionaries, each for a specific purpose. We have
all encountered words and/or expressions that tribal members, for various
reasons, object to including in a general dictionary. Putting these in a
separate smaller dictionary which clearly indicates the special nature of
these items strikes me as preferable to not including them anywhere
(although some members of the tribe or special group might still object, of
course). By the same token, in some groups, there are words and/or
expressions which are viewed as 'male language' and others which are viewed
as 'female language'. If these are numerous enough, it might be preferable
to put them in a separate dictionary, thus making an appropriately detailed
and important point about the language in question.

In sum, I don't really see why we can't have five (or ten, or as many as
necessary) dictionaries of Cheyenne or of any other language, each having a
specific purpose. Certainly, we would like to have at least one rather
general one, as 'all-encompassing' as is feasible. But why not have, say, a
dictionary of Cheyenne names, many of which we now have no clear meaning
for? Perhaps, as work on Proto-Algonquian progresses, we may find clues as
to what some of the 'mystery' names mean (or, perhaps more accurately,
meant). After all, it is through earlier records and linguistic analysis
that we know what 'Boston' originally meant ...

Best,

George

George F. Aubin
Professor Emeritus of French & Linguistics
500 Salisbury Street
Worcester, MA 01609-1296
gaubin at assumption.edu
Tel:  508.767.7590
Fax:  508.767.7342



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:lexicographylist-digest at yahoogroups.com 
    mailto:lexicographylist-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/