<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>Zgusta, L. 1991 The Polysemy of "history". <EM>Lexicographica,</EM> <STRONG>7</STRONG>:1-10</P>
<P>discusses two schools of lexicographers with respect to the problem you've been talking about.<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Swanton, M." <M.Swanton@LET.LEIDENUNIV.NL>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: Nahua language and culture discussion <NAHUAT-L@LISTS.UMN.EDU>
<DIV></DIV>>To: NAHUAT-L@LISTS.UMN.EDU
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Hippocrene dictionary
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:45:49 +0200
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Having an interest in dictionary making, I have been following this
<DIV></DIV>>discussion with interest. As I understand it, the issue here is the tension
<DIV></DIV>>between the descriptive and prescriptive functions of a dictionary.
<DIV></DIV>>Investigators of course are usually more interested in accurate description
<DIV></DIV>>of how language is actually used, whereas teachers are generally more
<DIV></DIV>>interested in authoritive affirmations as to how the language should be used
<DIV></DIV>>and written. There are surely many acceptable ways of resolving this tension
<DIV></DIV>>in a work such as a dictionary, but Galen's point is well made: "But any
<DIV></DIV>>such dicitonary should be very clear about what it is doing so that people
<DIV></DIV>>are not misled".
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>-----Original Message-----
<DIV></DIV>>From: brokaw@BUFFALO.EDU [mailto:brokaw@BUFFALO.EDU]
<DIV></DIV>>Sent: maandag 13 september 2004 14:24
<DIV></DIV>>To: NAHUAT-L@LISTS.UMN.EDU
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Hippocrene dictionary
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I have only sporadic access to email right now, so I am coming kind of
<DIV></DIV>>late to this discussion. Also, I will apologize in advance (although I
<DIV></DIV>>am writing this after finishing what comes below) for the length of
<DIV></DIV>>this email. I am in Southern England right now without an umbrella, and
<DIV></DIV>>it has been raining. And to get from where I am checking my email to
<DIV></DIV>>wherever else I can go, I would have to get wet. So, rather than do
<DIV></DIV>>that, I figured I would subject you to some of my perhaps senseless
<DIV></DIV>>ramblings. :-)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I would just point out that the situation of the Nahuatl language makes
<DIV></DIV>>the issues discussed in this thread very complicated. First, the
<DIV></DIV>>expression of objects, places, concepts, etc. that did not originate in
<DIV></DIV>>a Nahuatl context requires some kind of negotiation between Nahuatl,
<DIV></DIV>>the object or concept, and often the language in which these objects or
<DIV></DIV>>concepts were originally articulated. Sometimes that means using loan
<DIV></DIV>>words; other times it may mean coming up with a Nahuatl equivalent; or
<DIV></DIV>>sometimes a combination of the two. But these negotiations happen
<DIV></DIV>>naturally in communicative situations between native speakers. Given
<DIV></DIV>>the fact that there is no official national or international body that
<DIV></DIV>>makes decisions on what is permitted and what is not for Nahuatl such
<DIV></DIV>>as is the case for Spanish, this means that for many Nahuatl lexical
<DIV></DIV>>and grammatical elements, there will probably never be a "standard" to
<DIV></DIV>>which one can refer. (Of course, even in the case of Spanish and other
<DIV></DIV>>national langauges, this "standard" is misleading). This may be
<DIV></DIV>>frustrating for people like us who tend to think in terms of "standard"
<DIV></DIV>>language; but it probably more accurately reflects the nature of
<DIV></DIV>>language and language change.
<DIV></DIV>>It may be that the Nahuatl teacher made up the word tepoztelollotl, but
<DIV></DIV>>maybe that is the way one community of speakers refers to a train.
<DIV></DIV>>You can have the same experience with words that are clearly Nahuatl in
<DIV></DIV>>origin. I learned a colloquial expression from a native Nahuatl
<DIV></DIV>>speaker; and when I reproduced it for another native speaker from
<DIV></DIV>>another area, he had no idea what it meant or how it was used.
<DIV></DIV>>Another thing to keep in mind is that there is a pragmatic dimension to
<DIV></DIV>>communication that is not captured in dictionaries. Even the native
<DIV></DIV>>speaker who translated the term literally as "metal corncob" may very
<DIV></DIV>>well have understood the term to refer metaphorically to a train in a
<DIV></DIV>>communicative context. Even though this was not a previously
<DIV></DIV>>encountered metaphor, the pragmatic dimension of the communicative act
<DIV></DIV>>might have made it clear.
<DIV></DIV>>With regard to the more general issue of inventing Nahuatl words as
<DIV></DIV>>opposed to just using loan words: given that Nahuatl is not the
<DIV></DIV>>official language of a modern nation state that has an interest in
<DIV></DIV>>standardizing the language, I don't know how you could call this
<DIV></DIV>>elitist. Although the thing with French is a purist position, purism in
<DIV></DIV>>Nahuatl isn't necessarily elitist. But I see the general point. For me,
<DIV></DIV>>the problem here isn't so much that it is elitist as that it is
<DIV></DIV>>difficult to impose that kind of standard without the institutional
<DIV></DIV>>power that comes with national languages, formal schooling, etc. Native
<DIV></DIV>>speakers can certainly invent Nahuatl names for objects and concepts
<DIV></DIV>>new to the Nahuatl language. But they have to convince the community of
<DIV></DIV>>speakers to which they belong to accept these new terms. If they do,
<DIV></DIV>>this means that there will be a lot more variation from one community
<DIV></DIV>>of speakers to another than in national languages. But it can be
<DIV></DIV>>frustrating if you get misled into thinking that topoztelollotl is
<DIV></DIV>>commonly understood as train and it turns out to be one of the pet
<DIV></DIV>>terms invented by some guy who is trying to impose it on the rest of
<DIV></DIV>>the Nahuatl speaking and and Nahuatl learning world when in reality
<DIV></DIV>>most (or perhaps all?) native speakers just use the Spanish word "tren."
<DIV></DIV>>So, ultimately, any dictionary will have to be either community
<DIV></DIV>>specific; or if it aspires to be more comprehensive, it will have to
<DIV></DIV>>give multi-regional listings with the source of each definition. I
<DIV></DIV>>think this is one of the things that John was saying the dictionary
<DIV></DIV>>does not do: it doesn't tell you where these definitions come from, if
<DIV></DIV>>they are specific to a certain community, shared by some or most
<DIV></DIV>>Nahuatl language communities, or invented specifically for the
<DIV></DIV>>dictionary itself.
<DIV></DIV>>I haven't looked at the dictionary, but from what John and some others
<DIV></DIV>>have said, it seems to me that this is what is so problematic about it:
<DIV></DIV>>it seems to want to act like a national language dictionary, but
<DIV></DIV>>Nahuatl is not a national language. The point is not that they can't or
<DIV></DIV>>shouldn't invent words like Checkoslavakia. Why not? This can be an
<DIV></DIV>>interesting exercise. Personally, I don't think I would have much use
<DIV></DIV>>for such a dictionary, but there are people interested in reviving
<DIV></DIV>>Nahuatl within non-traditional communities and contexts for whom such a
<DIV></DIV>>dictionary might be useful.
<DIV></DIV>>But any such dicitonary should be very clear about what it is doing so
<DIV></DIV>>that people are not misled into thinking that it is some kind of
<DIV></DIV>>universal, definitive, Nahuatl dicitonary. Of coure in the case of
<DIV></DIV>>Checkoslavakia, it is probably clear to most people that this word is
<DIV></DIV>>not one that has come up much in native Nahuatl discourse. But there
<DIV></DIV>>may be other words that are not so obviously esoteric in daily Nahua
<DIV></DIV>>life. I guess the point would be that they should be honest about the
<DIV></DIV>>fact that they are participating in an exercise of linguistic
<DIV></DIV>>innovation and attempting to set some kind of standard. Then, it would
<DIV></DIV>>be up to any given linguistic community to adopt or ignore the lexical
<DIV></DIV>>items proposed.
<DIV></DIV>>For scholars interested in the language as it is used, for such a
<DIV></DIV>>dictionary to be useful and in any way authoritative, we would have to
<DIV></DIV>>wait until these items were actually adopted by some community, or
<DIV></DIV>>until some revivalist community is created that used them.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Galen
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Quoting micc2 <micc2@COX.NET>:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > Tlazcamati for your words Stephanie,
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > I just think that we should be careful of creating words that will
<DIV></DIV>> > never
<DIV></DIV>> > be used by the "common folk" It is easy to create words that will
<DIV></DIV>> > serve no purpose
<DIV></DIV>> > except to show how adroit a person is at manipulating a language.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > especially when beginners like me are taught these "new words" as
<DIV></DIV>> > canonical words that imply wide usage, we might end up talking
<DIV></DIV>> > nonsense
<DIV></DIV>> > to native speakers who might look at us with bemusement.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Many years ago a "nahuatl teacher" told me that to say "tren"
<DIV></DIV>> > (train)
<DIV></DIV>> > you said: tepuztelollotl. I said this word once to another
<DIV></DIV>> > Nahuatl
<DIV></DIV>> > speaker, one who did not
<DIV></DIV>> > put himself out there as a "maestro" and she said I had just said
<DIV></DIV>> > "
<DIV></DIV>> > it is a metal corncob"......hmmmm......
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Discover saving: Earn 5.25% p.a variable rate with <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAENAU/2755??PS=47575"> ING Direct </a> </html>