[Lexicog] dictionaries and audiences

[Hayim Sheynin]

Bill,

I totally support your ideas. I have an experience connected to compiling
Ladino-English comprehensive dictionary. It had be done in Israel in the period when computers were not used in humanities. From the large Ladino-English
cartoteque in Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem, compiled in the 60s, by the team of researchers, in 1976 there was prepared a sample fasciscle of the words beginning from one particular letter of Hebrew alphabet (Gimel). The dictionary was of an historical use, so the variants and meanings of the words were mentioned for all literary works since 1492 up to end of Ladino printing in pre-Holocaust period with small additions from newspapers published after WW2 and it was done in scholarly fashion with references to etimolology and uses in Old Spanish and contact languages. The dictionary was excellent, but the publication was financed by the community of wealthy Sepharadim (mostly uneducated businessmen) and they wanted completely different version (the use of contemporary spoken language)*. And since the publication depended on their finances, the project died and the enormous labor invested in preparation of the cartoteque is lost for scholars.
The cartoteque is still preserved covered under dust in the Institute.

Several Ladino-English dictionaries appeared since then, but nothing on this scale. And it seems that their compilers are catering to the tests of lower level users.
__________________________________________________
* They didn't understand that there was no standard literary language, and
if the team of the dictionary compilers had switch to their suggestion, they would 
receive the words of many dialects to which solution they disagreed either. 

Hayim Y. Sheynin

billposer at alum.mit.edu wrote:                                  
 One point to keep in mind with regard to the different
 audiences for dictionaries is that once a dictionary is
 in electronic form and can readily be printed in multiple
 forms, it is not necessarily the case that we need to
 settle on a single form for publication. It is quite
 possible to generate a version with lots of technical
 terminology and grammatical indices for linguists, another
 with no technical terminology and large type for the
 elders who already know the language and just want
 to browse and see that everything i correct, and still
 another for the non-linguist language learner with
 smaller type so as to be more portable and aids for
 learners such as a topical index. For some classes
 of users, there may be no need for a paper version
 at all - the ability to search the database may be
 quite sufficient.
 
 There are sometimes factors (usually political) that
 make such multiple publication impractical, but I 
 suggest that it is wise to get away from the traditional
 notion that a dictionary will take a single form.
 
 Bill
 
 
     
                       

 
---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20070327/e67ba32a/attachment.htm>