book containing a collection of the words of a See also:language, See also:dialect or subject, arranged alphabetically or See also:Definition in some other definite See also:order,and with explanations in the and hiseory. same or some other language . When the words are few in number, being only a small See also:part of those belonging to the subject, or when they are given without explanation, or some only are explained, or the explanations are partial, the See also:work is called a vocabulary; and when there is merely a See also:list of explanations of the technical words and expressions in some particular subject, a glossary . An alphabetical arrangement of the words of some book or author with references to the places where they occur is called an See also:index (q.v.) . When under each word the phrases containing it are added to the references, the work is called a See also:concordance . Sometimes, however, these names are given to true dictionaries; thus the See also:great See also:Italian dictionary of the Accademia della Crusca, in six volumes See also:folio, is called Vocabolario, and See also:Ernesti's dictionary to See also:Cicero is called Index . When the words are arranged according to a definite See also:system of See also:classification under heads and subdivisions, according to their nature or their meaning, the book is usually called a classed vocabulary; but when sufficient explanations are given it is often accepted as a dictionary, like the Onomasticon of See also:Julius See also:Pollux, or the native dictionaries of See also:Sanskrit, Manchu and many other See also:languages . Dictionaries were originally books of reference explaining the words of a language or of some part of it . As the names of things, as well as those of persons and places, are words, and often require explanation even more than other classes of words, they were necessarily included in dictionaries, and often to a very great extent . In See also:time, books were devoted to them alone, and were limited to See also:special subjects, and these have so multiplied, that dictionaries of things now See also:rival in number and variety those of words or of languages, while they often far surpass them in bulk . There are dictionaries of See also:biography and See also:history, real and fictitious, See also:general and special, See also:relating to men of all countries, characters and professions; the See also:English Dictionary of See also:National Biography (see BIOGRAPHY) is a great instance of one See also:form of these; dictionaries of bibliography, relating to all books, or to those of some particular See also:kind or See also:country; dictionaries of See also:geography (sometimes called gazetteers) of the whole See also:world, of particular countries, or of small districts, of towns and of villages, of castles, monasteries and other buildings . There are dictionaries of See also:philosophy; of the See also:Bible; of See also:mathematics; of natural history, See also:zoology, See also:botany; of birds, trees, See also:plants and See also:flowers; of See also:chemistry, See also:geology and See also:mineralogy; of See also:architecture, See also:painting and See also:music; of See also:medicine, See also:surgery, See also:anatomy, See also:pathology and See also:physiology; of See also:diplomacy; of See also:law, See also:canon, See also:civil, statutory and criminal; of See also:political and social sciences; of See also:agriculture, rural See also:economy and gardening; of See also:commerce, See also:navigation, See also:horsemanship and the military arts; of See also:mechanics, See also:machines and the See also:manual arts .
There are dictionaries of antiquities, of See also:chronology, of See also:dates, of See also:genealogy, of See also:heraldry, of diplomatics, of abbreviations, of useful receipts, of monograms, of adulterations and of very many other subjects . These See also:works are separately referred to in the See also:bibliographies attached to the articles on the See also:separate subjects . And lastly, there are dictionaries of the arts and sciences, and their comprehensive offspring, encyclopaedias (q.v.), which include in themselves every See also:branch of knowledge . Neither under the heading of dictionary nor under that of See also:encyclopaedia do we propose to include a mention of every work of its class, but many of these will be referred to in the separate articles on the subjects to which they pertain . And in this See also:article we confine ourselves to an See also:account of those dictionaries which are primarily word-books . This is practically the most convenient distinction from the subject-book or encyclopaedia; though the two characters are often combined in one work . Thus the See also:Century Dictionary has encyclopaedic features, while the See also:present edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, restoring itsearlier tradition but carrying out the See also:idea more systematically, also embodies dictionary features . Dictionarium is a word of See also:low or See also:modern Latinity;' dictio, from which it was formed, was used in See also:medieval Latin to mean a word . See also:Lexicon is a corresponding word of See also:Greek origin, meaning a book of or for words—a dictionary . A glossary is properly a collection of unusual or See also:foreign words requiring explanation . It is the name frequently given to English dictionaries of dialects, which the Germans usually See also:call idioticon, and the Italians vocabolario . Worterbuch, a See also:hook of words, was first used among the Germans, according to See also:Grimm, by Kramer (1719), imitated from the Dutch woordenboek .
From the Germans the Swedes and Danes adopted ordbok, ordbog . The Icelandic ordabok, like the See also:German, contains the genitive plural . The See also:Slavonic nations use slovar, slovnik, and the See also:southern Slays ryetshnik, from slovo, ryetsh, a word, formed, like dictionary and lexicon, without See also:composition . Many other names have been given to dictionaries, as See also:thesaurus, Sprachschatz, cornucopia, gazophylacium, comprehensorium, catholicon, to indicate their completeness ; manipulus predicantium, promptorium puerorum, See also:liber memorialis, hortus vocabulorum, See also:ionia (a See also:violet See also:bed), See also:alveary (a beehive), kamoos (the See also:sea), haft kulzum (the seven seas), tsze tien-(a See also:standard of See also:character), onomasticon, nomenclator, bibliotheca, elucidario, Mundart-sammlung, clavis, scala, pharetra,2 La Crusca from the great Italian dictionary, and See also:Calepino (in See also:Spanish and Italian) from the Latin dictionary of Calepinus . The tendency of great dictionaries is to unite in themselves all the See also:peculiar features of special dictionaries . A large dictionary is most useful when a word is to be thoroughly studied, or when there is difficulty in making out the meaning of a word or phrase . Special dictionaries are more useful for special purposes; for instance, synonyms are best studied in a dictionary of synonyms . And small dictionaries are more convenient for frequent use, as in translating from an unfamiliar language, for words may be found more quickly, and they present the words and their meanings in a concentrated and compact form, instead of being scattered over a large space, and separated by other See also:matter . Dictionaries of several languages, called polyglots, are of different kinds . Some are polyglot in the vocabulary, but not in the explanation, like See also:
Pauthier's Annamese Dictionary is polyglot in a peculiar way . It gives the See also:Chinese characters with their See also:pronunciation in Chinese and Annamese . Special dictionaries are of many kinds . There are technical dictionaries of See also:etymology, foreign words, dialects, See also:secret languages, See also:slang, neology, barbarous words, faults of expression, choice words, See also:prosody, pronunciation, spelling, orators, poets, law, music, proper names, particular authors, nouns, verbs, participles, particles, See also:double forms, difficulties and many others . Fick's dictionary (See also:Gottingen, 1868, 8vo; 1874-1876, 8vo, 4 vols.) is a remarkable See also:attempt to ascertain the See also:common language of the Indo-See also:European nations before each of their great separations . In the second edition of his Etymologische Forschungen (Lerngo and Detmoldt, 1859-1873, 8vo, 7217 pages) See also:Pott gives a See also:comparative lexicon of Indo-European roots, 2226 in number, occupying 5140 pages . 1 Joannes de Garlandia (See also:
The older view of the matter was that the lexicographer should furnish a standard of usage—should See also:register only those words which are, or at some See also:period of the language have been, " See also:good " from a See also:literary point of view, with their " proper " senses and uses, or should at least furnish the means of determining what these are . In other words, his chief See also:duty was conceived to be to sift and refine, to decide authoritatively questions with regard to good usage, and thus to See also:fix the language as completely as might be possible within the limits determined by the literary See also:taste of his time . Thus the Accademia della Crusca, founded near the See also:close of the 16th century, was established for the purpose of purifying in this way the Italian See also:tongue, and in 1612 the Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca, See also:long the standard of that language, was published . The Academie Francaise, the first edition of whose dictionary appeared in 1694, had a similar origin . In See also:England the idea of constructing a dictionary upon this principle arose during the second See also:quarter of the 18th century . It was imagined by men of letters—among them See also:
. . . It is no task of the maker of it to select the good' words of the language . . . . The business which he has undertaken is to collect and arrange all words, whether good or See also:bad, whether they commend themselves to his judgment or other-See also:wise . . . . He is an historian of [the language], not a critic." That is, for the literary view of the chief end of the general dictionary should be substituted the philological or scientific . In See also:Germany this substitution had already been effected by See also:Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm in their dictionary of the German language, the first volume of which appeared in 1854 . In brief, then, the modern view is that the general dictionary of a language should be a See also:record of all the words—current or obsolete—of that language, with all their meanings and uses, but should not attempt to be, except secondarily or indirectly, a See also:guide to " good " usage . A " standard " dictionary has, in fact, been recognized to be an impossibility, if not an absurdity . This theoretical requirement must, of course, be modified considerably in practice . The date at which a modern language is to be regarded by the lexicographer as " beginning " must, as a See also:rule, be somewhat arbitrarily chosen; while considerable portions of its earlier vocabulary cannot be recovered because of the incompleteness of the literary record . Moreover, not eventhe most See also:complete dictionary can include all the words which the records—earlier and later—actually contain .
Many words, that is to say, which are found in the literature of a language cannot be regarded as, for lexicographic purposes, belonging to that language; while many more may or may not be held to belong to it, according to the judgment—almost the whim—of the individual lexicographer . This is especially true of the English tongue . " That vast aggregate of words and phrases which constitutes the vocabulary of English-speaking men presents, to the mind that endeavours to grasp it as a definite whole, the aspect of one of those nebulous masses See also:familiar to the astronomer, in which a clear and unmistakable See also:nucleus shades off on all sides, through zones of decreasing brightness, to a dim marginal film that seems to end nowhere, but to lose itself imperceptibly in the surrounding darkness " (Dr J . A . H . See also:
Dictionaries of the older type, therefore, usually make the common, or " proper " or "See also:root" meaning of a word the starting point of its definition, and arrange its other senses in a logical or accidental order commonly ignoring the historical order in which the various meanings arose . Still less do they attempt to give data from which the vocabulary of the language at any previous period may be determined . The philologist, however, for whom the growth, or progressive alteration, of a language is a fact of central importance, regards no record of a language as complete which does not exhibit this growth in its successive stages . He desires to know when and where each word, and each form and sense of it, are first found in the language; if the word or sense is obsolete, when it died; and any other fact that throws See also:light upon its history . He requires, accordingly, of the lexicographer that, having ascertained these data, he shall make them the See also:foundation of his exposition—in particular, of the See also:division and arrangement of his See also:definitions, that sense being placed first which appeared first in order of time . In other words, each article in the dictionary 'should furnish an orderly biography of the word of which it treats, each word and sense being so dated that the exact time of its See also:appearance and the duration of its use may as nearly as possible be determined . This, in principle, is the method of the new lexicography . In practice it is subject to limitations similar to those of the vocabulary mentioned above . Incompleteness of the See also:early record is here an even greater obstacle; and there are many words whose history is, for one See also:reason or another, so unimportant that to treat it elaborately would be a See also:waste of labour and space . The See also:adoption of the historical principle involves a further See also:note-worthy modification of older methods, namely, an important See also:extension of the use of quotations . To Dr Johnson belongs the See also:credit of showing how useful, when properly chosen, they may be, not only in corroborating the lexicographer's statements, but also in revealing special shades of meaning or See also:variations of use which his definitions cannot well See also:express . No part of Johnson's work is more valuable than this .
This idea was more fully See also:developed and applied by Dr See also:
The chief difficulty in the way of this use of quotations—after the difficulty of collection—is that of finding space for them in a dictionary of reasonable See also:size . Preference must be given to those which are essential, the number of those which are cited merely on methodical grounds being made as small as possible . It is hardly necessary to-add that the negative evidence furnished by quotations is generally of little value; one can seldom, that is, be certain that the lexicographer has actually found the earliest or the latest use, or that the word or sense has not been current during some intermediate period from which he has no quotations . Lastly, a much more important See also:place in the See also:scheme of the ideal dictionary is now assigned to the etymology of words . This may be attributed, in part, to the recent rapid development of etymology as a See also:science, and to the greater abundance of trustworthy data; but it is chiefly due to the fact that from the historical point of view the connexion between that See also:section of the biography of a word which lies within the language—subsequent, that is, to the time when the language may, for lexicographical purposes, be assumed to have begun, or to the time when the word was adopted or invented—and its antecedent history:has become more vital and interesting . Etymology, in other words, is essentially the history of the form of a word up to the time when it became a part of the language, and is, in a measure, an extension of the history of the development of the word in the language . More-over, it is the only means by which the exact relations of allied words can be ascertained, and the separation of words of the same form but of diverse origin (homonyms) can be effected, and is thus, for the dictionary, the foundation of all See also:family history and correct genealogy . In fact, the See also:attention that has been paid to these two points in the best recent lexicography is one of its distinguishing and most important characteristics . Related to the etymology of words are the changes in their form which may have occurred while they have been in use as parts of the language—modifications of their pronunciation, corruptions by popular etymology or false associations, and the like . The facts with regard to these things which the wide See also:research necessitated by the historical method furnishes abundantly to the modern lexicographer are often among the most novel and interesting of his acquisitions . It should be added that even approximate conformity to the theoretical requirements of modern lexicography as above out-lined is possible only under conditions similar to those under which the Oxford New English Dictionary was undertaken (see below) . The labour demanded is too vast, and the necessary bulk of the dictionary too great .
When, however, a language is recorded in one such dictionary, those of smaller size and more modest pretensions can See also:rest upon it as an authority and conform to it as a See also:model so far as their special limitations permit . The ideal thus developed is primarily that of the general dictionary of the purely philological type, but it applies also to the encyclopaedic dictionary . In so far as the latter is strictly lexicographic—deals with words as words, and not with the things they denote—it should be made after the model of the former, and is defective to the extent in which it deviates from it . The addition of encyclopaedic matter to the philological in no way affects the general principles involved . It may, however, for See also:practical reasons, modify their application in various ways . For example, the number of obsolete and dialectal words included may be much diminished and the number of scientific terms (for instance, new Latin botanical and zoological names) be increased; and the relative amount of space devoted to etymologies and quotations may be lessened . In general, since books of this kind are designed to serve more or less as works of general reference, the making of them must be governed by considerations of practical utility which the compilers of a purely philological dictionary are not obliged to regard . The encyclopaedic type itself, although it has often been criticized as hybrid—as a mixture of two things which should be kept distinct—is entirely defensible . Between the dictionary and the encyclopaedia the dividing line cannot sharply be drawn . There are words the meaning of which cannot be explained fully without some description of things, and, on the other See also:hand, the description of things and processes often involves the definition of names . To the See also:combination of the two objection cannot justly be made, so long as it is effected in a way—with a selection of material—that leaves the dictionary essentially a dictionary and not an encyclopaedia . Moreover, the large vocabulary of the general dictionary makes it possible to present certain kinds of encyclopaedic matter with a degree of fulness and a convenience of arrangement which are possible in no single work of any other class .
In fact, it may be said that if the encyclopaedic dictionary did not exist it would have to be invented; that its See also:justification is its indispensableness . Not the least of its advantages is that it makes legitimate the use of diagrams and pictorial illustrations, which, if properly selected and executed, are often valuable See also:aids to definition . On its practical See also:side the advance in lexicography has consisted in the elaboration of methods long in use rather than in the invention of new ones . The only way to collect the data upon which the vocabulary, the definitions and the history are to be based is, of course, to See also:search for them in the written monuments of the language, as all lexicographers who have not merely borrowed from their predecessors have done . But the wider See also:scope and special aims of the new lexicography demand that the investigation shall be vastly more comprehensive, systematic and precise . It is necessary, in brief, that, as far as may be possible, the literature (of all kinds) of every period of the language shall be examined systematically, in order that all the words, and senses and forms of words, which have existed during any period may be found, and that enough excerpts (carefully verified,credited and dated) to See also:cover all the essential facts shall be made . The books, See also:pamphlets, See also:journals, See also:newspapers, and so on which must thus be searched will be numbered by thousands, and the quotations selected may (as in the case of the Oxford New English Dictionary) be counted by millions . This task is beyond the See also:powers of any one man, even though he be a Johnson, or a See also:Littre or a Grimm, and it is now assigned to a See also:corps of readers whose number is limited only by the ability of the editor to obtain such assistance . The modern method of editing the material thus accumulated—the actual work of compilation—also is characterized by the application of the principle of the division of labour . Johnson boasted that his dictionary was written with but little assistance from the learned, and the same was in large measure true of that of Littre . Such attempts on the part of one man to write practically the whole of a general dictionary are no longer possible, not merely because of the vast labour and philological research necessitated by modern aims, but more especially because the immense development of the vocabulary of the special sciences renders indispensable the assistance, in the work of definition, of persons who are See also:expert in those sciences . The tendency, accordingly, has been to enlarge greatly the editorial See also:staff of the dictionary, scores of sub-editors and contributors being now employed where a dozen or fewer were formerly deemed sufficient .
In other words, the making of a " complete " dictionary has become a co-operative enterprise, to the success of which workers in all the See also:fields of literature and science contribute . The most complete exemplification of these principles and methods is the Oxford New English Dictionary, on historical principles, founded mainly on materials collected by the Philological Society . This monumental work originated in the See also:suggestion of Trench that an attempt should be made, under the direction of the Philological Society, to complete the vocabulary of existing dictionaries and to See also:supply the historical See also:information which they lacked . The suggestion was adopted, considerable material was collected, and Mr See also:Herbert See also:Coleridge was appointed general editor . He died in 186x, and was succeeded by Dr F . J . See also:Furnivall . Little, however, was done, beyond the collection of quotations—about 2,000,000 of which were gathered—until in 1878 the expense of See also:printing and See also:publishing the proposed dictionary was assumed by the Delegates of the University See also:Press, and the editorship was entrusted to Dr (afterwards See also:Sir) J . A . H . Murray . As the historical point of beginning, the See also:middle of the 12th century was selected, all words that were obsolete at that date being excluded, though the history of words that were current both before and after that date is given in its entirety; and it was decided that the search for quotations—which, according to the original See also:design, was to cover the entire literature down to the beginning of the 16th century and as much of the subsequent literature (especially the works of the more important writers and works on special subjects) as might be possible—should be 'made more thorough .
More than 800 readers, in all parts of the world, offered their aid; and when the See also:preface to the first volume appeared in 1888, the editor was able to announce that the readers had increased to 1300, and that 3,500,000 of quotations, taken from the writings of more than 5000 authors, had already been amassed . The whole work was planned to be completed in ten large volumes, each issued first in smaller parts . The first part was issued in 1884, and by the beginning of 1910 the first part of the See also:letter S had been reached . The historical method of exposition, particularly by quotations, is applied in the New English Dictionary, if not in all cases with entire success, yet, on the whole, with a regularity and a precision which leave little to be desired . A See also:minor See also:fault is that excerpts from second or third See also:rate authors have occasionally been used where better ones from writers of the first class either must have been at hand or could have been found . As was said above, the literary quality of the question is highly important even in historical lexicography, and should not be neglected unnecessarily . Other special features of the book are the completeness with which variations of pronunciation and See also:orthography (with dates) are given; the fulness and scientific excellence of the etymologies, which abound in new information and corrections of old errors; the phonetic precision with which the present (See also:British) pronunciation is indicated; and the elaborate sub-division of meanings . The definitions as a whole are marked by a high degree of accuracy, though in a certain number of cases (not explicable by the date of the volumes) the lists of meanings are not. so good as one would expect, as compared (say) withthe Century Dictionary . Work of such magnitude and quality is possible, practically, only when the editor of the dictionary can command not merely the aid of a very large number of scholars and men of science, but their gratuitous aid . In this the New English Dictionary has been singularly fortunate . The conditions under which it originated, and its aim, have interested scholars every-where, and led them to contribute to the perfecting of it their knowledge and time . The long list of names of such helpers in Sir J .
A . H . Murray's preface is in curious contrast with their See also:absence from Dr Johnson's and the few which are given in that of Littre . The editor's See also:principal assistants were Dr See also:
It is See also:worth noting that the figures given seem to indicate that not very many more words have been added to the vocabulary of the language during the past 15o years than had been lost by 175o . The pages selected, however, contain comparatively few recent scientific terms . A broader comparison would probably show that the gain has been more than twice as great as the loss . In the Deutsches Worterbuch of Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm the scientific spirit, as was said above, first found expression in general lexicography . The desirability of a complete inventory and investigation of German words was recognized by See also:Leibnitz and by various 18th-century scholars, but the See also:plan and methods of the Grimms were the See also:direct product of the then new scientific philology . Their design, in brief, was to give an exhaustive account of the words of the literary language (New High German) from about the end of the 15th century, including their earlier etymological and later history, with references to important dialectal words and forms; and to illustrate their use and history abundantly by quotations . The first volume appeared in t854 . Jacob Grimm (died 1863) edited the first, second (with his See also:brother, who died in 1859), third and a part of the See also:fourth volumes; the others have been edited by various distinguished scholars . The scope and methods of this dictionary have been broadened somewhat as the work has advanced . In general it may be said that it differs from the New English Dictionary chiefly in its omission of pronunciations and other pedagogic matter; its irregular treatment of dates; its much less systematic and less lucid statement of etymologies; its less systematic and less fruitful use of quotations; and its less convenient and less intelligible arrangement of material and See also:typography . These general principles See also:lie also at the foundation of the scholarly Dictionnaire de la langue frangaise of E . Littre, though they are there carried out less systematically and less completely .
In the arrangement of the definitions the first place is given to the most See also:primitive meaning of the word instead of to the most common one, as in the dictionary of the Academy; but the other meanings follow in an order that is often logical rather than historical . Quotations also are frequently used merely as literary illustrations, or are entirely omitted; in the special paragraphs on the history of words before the 16th century, however, they are put to a strictly historical use . This dictionary—perhaps the greatest ever compiled by one man—was published 1863-1872 . (Supplement, 1878.) The Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, prepared under the auspices of the German See also:Academies of See also:Berlin, Gottingen, See also:Leipzig, See also:Munich and See also:Vienna, is a notable application of the principles and practical co-operative method of modern lexicography to the classical See also:tongues . The plan of the work is to collect quotations which shall register, with its full context, every word (except the most familiar particles) in the See also:text of each Latin author down to the middle of the 2nd century A.D., and to See also:extract all important passages from all writers of the following centuries down to the 7th; and upon these materials to found a complete historical dictionary of the Latin language . The work of collecting quotations was begun in 1894, and the first part of the first volume has been published . In the making of all these great dictionaries (except, of course, the last) the needs of the general public as well as those of scholars have been kept in view . But the type to which the general dictionary designed for popular use has tended more and more to conform is the encyclopaedic . This combination of lexicon and encyclopaedia is exhibited in an extreme—and theoretically objectionable—form in the See also:Grand dictionaaire universel du XIX8 siecle of See also:Pierre Larousse . Besides common words and their definitions, it contains a great many proper names, with a correspondingly large number of See also:biographical, See also:geographical, historical and other articles, the connexion of which with the strictly lexicographical part is purely See also:mechanical . Its utility, which—notwithstanding its many defects—is very great, makes it, however, a model in many respects . Fifteen volumes were published (1866–1876), and supplements were brought out later (1878-189o) .
The Nouveau Larousse illustre started publication in 1901, and was completed in 1904 (7 vols.) . This is not an abridgment or a fresh edition of the Grand Dictionaaire of Pierre Larousse, but a new and distinct publication . The most notable.work of this class, in English, is the Century Dictionary, an See also:American product, edited by See also:Professor W . D . See also:Whitney, and published 1889–1891 in six volumes, containing 7046 pages (large See also:quarto) . It conforms to the philological mode in giving with great fulness the older as well as the present vocabulary of the language, and in the completeness of its etymologies; but it does not attempt to give the full history of every word within the language . Among its other more note-worthy characteristics are the inclusion of a great number of modern scientific and technical words, and the abundance of its quotations . The quotations are for the most part provided with references, but they are not dated . Even when compared with the much larger New English Dictionary, the Century's great merit is the excellent enumeration of meanings, and the ac-curacy of its explanations; in this respect it is often better and See also:fuller than the New English . In the application of the encyclopaedic method this dictionary is conservative, excluding, with a few exceptions, proper names, and restricting, for the most part, the encyclopaedic matter to descriptive and other details which may legitimately be added to the definitions . Its pictorial illustrations are very numerous and well executed . In the manner of its compilation it is a good example of modern co-operative dictionary-making, being the See also:joint product of a large number of specialists .
Next to the New English Dictionary it is the most complete and scholarly of English lexicons . Bibliography.—The following list of dictionaries (from the 9th edition of this work, with occasional corrections) is given for its historical See also:interest, but in recent years dictionary-making has been so abundant that no attempt is made to be completely inclusive of later works; the various articles on languages may be consulted for these . The list is arranged geographically by families of languages, or by regions . In each See also:group the order, when not alphabetical, is usually from See also:north to See also:south, See also:extinct languages generally coming first, and dialects being placed under their language . Dictionaries forming parts of other works, such as travels, histories, transactions, See also:periodicals, See also:reading-books, &c., are generally excluded . The system here adopted was chosen as on the whole the one best calculated to keep together dictionaries naturally associated . The languages to be considered are too many for an alphabetical arrangement, which ignores all relations both natural and geographical, and too few to require a strict classification by See also:affinities, by which the European languages, which for many reasons should be kept together, would be dispersed . Under either system, Arabic, Persian and See also:Turkish, whose dictionaries are so closely connected, would be widely separated . A wholly geographical arrangement would be in- convenient, especially in See also:Europe . Any system, however, which attempts to arrange in a consecutive See also:series the great network of languages by which the whole world is enclosed, must be open to some objections; and the arrangement adopted in this list has produced some anomalies and dispersions which might cause inconvenience if not pointed out . The old See also:Italic languages are placed under Latin, all dialects of See also:France under French (but Provencal as a distinct language), and Wallachian among Romanic languages . Low German and its dialects are not separated from High German .
Basque is placed after See also:Celtic; Albanian, Gipsy and Turkish at the end of Europe, the last being thus separated from its dialects and congeners in See also:Northern and Central See also:Asia, among which are placed the Kazan dialect of Tatar, Samoyed and Ostiak . Accadian is placed after See also:Assyrian among the Semitic languages, and Maltese as a dialect of Arabic; while the Ethiopic is among See also:African languages as it seemed undesirable to separate it from the other Abyssinian languages, or these from their neighbours to the north and south . Circassian and Ossetic are joined to the first group of See also:Aryan languages lying to the north-See also:west of See also:Persia, and containing Armenian, Georgian and Kurd . The following is the order of the See also:groups, some of the more important languages, that is, of those best provided with dictionaries, See also:standing alone: EUROPE: Greek, Latin, French, See also:Romance, See also:Teutonic (Scandinavian and German), Celtic, Basque, Baltic, Slavonic, Ugrian, Gipsy, Albanian . Asia: Semitic, Armenian, Persian, Sanskrit, See also:Indian, Indo-Chinese, See also:Malay See also:Archipelago, Philippines, Chinese, See also:Japanese, Northern and Central Asia . See also:AFRICA: See also:Egypt and See also:Abyssinia, Eastern Africa, Southern, Western, Central, See also:Berber .
Read more: DICTIONARY - Online Information article about DICTIONARY http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/DEM_DIO/DICTIONARY.html#ixzz0z2F3Vd48
There are dictionaries of antiquities, of See also:chronology, of See also:dates, of See also:genealogy, of See also:heraldry, of diplomatics, of abbreviations, of useful receipts, of monograms, of adulterations and of very many other subjects . These See also:works are separately referred to in the See also:bibliographies attached to the articles on the See also:separate subjects . And lastly, there are dictionaries of the arts and sciences, and their comprehensive offspring, encyclopaedias (q.v.), which include in themselves every See also:branch of knowledge . Neither under the heading of dictionary nor under that of See also:encyclopaedia do we propose to include a mention of every work of its class, but many of these will be referred to in the separate articles on the subjects to which they pertain . And in this See also:article we confine ourselves to an See also:account of those dictionaries which are primarily word-books . This is practically the most convenient distinction from the subject-book or encyclopaedia; though the two characters are often combined in one work . Thus the See also:Century Dictionary has encyclopaedic features, while the See also:present edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, restoring itsearlier tradition but carrying out the See also:idea more systematically, also embodies dictionary features . Dictionarium is a word of See also:low or See also:modern Latinity;' dictio, from which it was formed, was used in See also:medieval Latin to mean a word . See also:Lexicon is a corresponding word of See also:Greek origin, meaning a book of or for words—a dictionary . A glossary is properly a collection of unusual or See also:foreign words requiring explanation . It is the name frequently given to English dictionaries of dialects, which the Germans usually See also:call idioticon, and the Italians vocabolario . Worterbuch, a See also:hook of words, was first used among the Germans, according to See also:Grimm, by Kramer (1719), imitated from the Dutch woordenboek .
From the Germans the Swedes and Danes adopted ordbok, ordbog . The Icelandic ordabok, like the See also:German, contains the genitive plural . The See also:Slavonic nations use slovar, slovnik, and the See also:southern Slays ryetshnik, from slovo, ryetsh, a word, formed, like dictionary and lexicon, without See also:composition . Many other names have been given to dictionaries, as See also:thesaurus, Sprachschatz, cornucopia, gazophylacium, comprehensorium, catholicon, to indicate their completeness ; manipulus predicantium, promptorium puerorum, See also:liber memorialis, hortus vocabulorum, See also:ionia (a See also:violet See also:bed), See also:alveary (a beehive), kamoos (the See also:sea), haft kulzum (the seven seas), tsze tien-(a See also:standard of See also:character), onomasticon, nomenclator, bibliotheca, elucidario, Mundart-sammlung, clavis, scala, pharetra,2 La Crusca from the great Italian dictionary, and See also:Calepino (in See also:Spanish and Italian) from the Latin dictionary of Calepinus . The tendency of great dictionaries is to unite in themselves all the See also:peculiar features of special dictionaries . A large dictionary is most useful when a word is to be thoroughly studied, or when there is difficulty in making out the meaning of a word or phrase . Special dictionaries are more useful for special purposes; for instance, synonyms are best studied in a dictionary of synonyms . And small dictionaries are more convenient for frequent use, as in translating from an unfamiliar language, for words may be found more quickly, and they present the words and their meanings in a concentrated and compact form, instead of being scattered over a large space, and separated by other See also:matter . Dictionaries of several languages, called polyglots, are of different kinds . Some are polyglot in the vocabulary, but not in the explanation, like See also:
- JOHNSON, ANDREW
- JOHNSON, ANDREW (1808–1875)
- JOHNSON, BENJAMIN (c. 1665-1742)
- JOHNSON, EASTMAN (1824–1906)
- JOHNSON, REVERDY (1796–1876)
- JOHNSON, RICHARD (1573–1659 ?)
- JOHNSON, RICHARD MENTOR (1781–1850)
- JOHNSON, SAMUEL (1709-1784)
- JOHNSON, SIR THOMAS (1664-1729)
- JOHNSON, SIR WILLIAM (1715–1774)
- JOHNSON, THOMAS
Pauthier's Annamese Dictionary is polyglot in a peculiar way . It gives the See also:Chinese characters with their See also:pronunciation in Chinese and Annamese . Special dictionaries are of many kinds . There are technical dictionaries of See also:etymology, foreign words, dialects, See also:secret languages, See also:slang, neology, barbarous words, faults of expression, choice words, See also:prosody, pronunciation, spelling, orators, poets, law, music, proper names, particular authors, nouns, verbs, participles, particles, See also:double forms, difficulties and many others . Fick's dictionary (See also:Gottingen, 1868, 8vo; 1874-1876, 8vo, 4 vols.) is a remarkable See also:attempt to ascertain the See also:common language of the Indo-See also:European nations before each of their great separations . In the second edition of his Etymologische Forschungen (Lerngo and Detmoldt, 1859-1873, 8vo, 7217 pages) See also:Pott gives a See also:comparative lexicon of Indo-European roots, 2226 in number, occupying 5140 pages . 1 Joannes de Garlandia (See also:
- JOHN
- JOHN (1167–1216)
- JOHN (1290-c. 1320)
- JOHN (1296-1346)
- JOHN (1371–1419)
- JOHN (1468-1532)
- JOHN (1801-1873)
- JOHN (Heb. llni')
- JOHN (ZAPOLYA) (1487-1540)
- JOHN, 4TH MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE (c. 1695-1762)
- JOHN, DON (1545-1578)
- JOHN, DON (1629–1679)
- JOHN, GOSPEL OF ST
- JOHN, or HAYS (1513–1571)
- JOHN, THE APOSTLE
- JOHN, THE EPISTLES OF
The older view of the matter was that the lexicographer should furnish a standard of usage—should See also:register only those words which are, or at some See also:period of the language have been, " See also:good " from a See also:literary point of view, with their " proper " senses and uses, or should at least furnish the means of determining what these are . In other words, his chief See also:duty was conceived to be to sift and refine, to decide authoritatively questions with regard to good usage, and thus to See also:fix the language as completely as might be possible within the limits determined by the literary See also:taste of his time . Thus the Accademia della Crusca, founded near the See also:close of the 16th century, was established for the purpose of purifying in this way the Italian See also:tongue, and in 1612 the Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca, See also:long the standard of that language, was published . The Academie Francaise, the first edition of whose dictionary appeared in 1694, had a similar origin . In See also:England the idea of constructing a dictionary upon this principle arose during the second See also:quarter of the 18th century . It was imagined by men of letters—among them See also:
- ALEXANDER
- ALEXANDER (1461-1506)
- ALEXANDER (ALEXANDER OF BATTENBERG) (1857-1893)
- ALEXANDER (ALEXANDER OsxENOVici) (1876-1903)
- ALEXANDER, ARCHIBALD (1772—1851)
- ALEXANDER, FRANCIS (1800—1881)
- ALEXANDER, GEORGE (1858— )
- ALEXANDER, JOHN WHITE (1856- )
- ALEXANDER, JOSEPH ADDISON (18o9—186o)
- ALEXANDER, SIR JAMES EDWARD (1803—1885)
- ALEXANDER, WILLIAM (1824— )
- ALEXANDER, WILLIAM LINDSAY (1808—1884)
. . . It is no task of the maker of it to select the good' words of the language . . . . The business which he has undertaken is to collect and arrange all words, whether good or See also:bad, whether they commend themselves to his judgment or other-See also:wise . . . . He is an historian of [the language], not a critic." That is, for the literary view of the chief end of the general dictionary should be substituted the philological or scientific . In See also:Germany this substitution had already been effected by See also:Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm in their dictionary of the German language, the first volume of which appeared in 1854 . In brief, then, the modern view is that the general dictionary of a language should be a See also:record of all the words—current or obsolete—of that language, with all their meanings and uses, but should not attempt to be, except secondarily or indirectly, a See also:guide to " good " usage . A " standard " dictionary has, in fact, been recognized to be an impossibility, if not an absurdity . This theoretical requirement must, of course, be modified considerably in practice . The date at which a modern language is to be regarded by the lexicographer as " beginning " must, as a See also:rule, be somewhat arbitrarily chosen; while considerable portions of its earlier vocabulary cannot be recovered because of the incompleteness of the literary record . Moreover, not eventhe most See also:complete dictionary can include all the words which the records—earlier and later—actually contain .
Many words, that is to say, which are found in the literature of a language cannot be regarded as, for lexicographic purposes, belonging to that language; while many more may or may not be held to belong to it, according to the judgment—almost the whim—of the individual lexicographer . This is especially true of the English tongue . " That vast aggregate of words and phrases which constitutes the vocabulary of English-speaking men presents, to the mind that endeavours to grasp it as a definite whole, the aspect of one of those nebulous masses See also:familiar to the astronomer, in which a clear and unmistakable See also:nucleus shades off on all sides, through zones of decreasing brightness, to a dim marginal film that seems to end nowhere, but to lose itself imperceptibly in the surrounding darkness " (Dr J . A . H . See also:
- MURRAY
- MURRAY (or MORAY), EARLS OF
- MURRAY (or MORAY), JAMES STUART, EARL OF (c. 1531-1570)
- MURRAY (or MORAY), SIR ROBERT (c. 1600-1673)
- MURRAY, ALEXANDER STUART (1841-1904)
- MURRAY, DAVID (1849– )
- MURRAY, EUSTACE CLARE GRENVILLE (1824–1881)
- MURRAY, JAMES (c. 1719-1794)
- MURRAY, JOHN
- MURRAY, JOHN (1778–1820)
- MURRAY, LINDLEY (1745–1826)
- MURRAY, LORD GEORGE (1694–1760)
- MURRAY, SIR JAMES AUGUSTUS HENRY (1837– )
- MURRAY, SIR JOHN (1841– )
Dictionaries of the older type, therefore, usually make the common, or " proper " or "See also:root" meaning of a word the starting point of its definition, and arrange its other senses in a logical or accidental order commonly ignoring the historical order in which the various meanings arose . Still less do they attempt to give data from which the vocabulary of the language at any previous period may be determined . The philologist, however, for whom the growth, or progressive alteration, of a language is a fact of central importance, regards no record of a language as complete which does not exhibit this growth in its successive stages . He desires to know when and where each word, and each form and sense of it, are first found in the language; if the word or sense is obsolete, when it died; and any other fact that throws See also:light upon its history . He requires, accordingly, of the lexicographer that, having ascertained these data, he shall make them the See also:foundation of his exposition—in particular, of the See also:division and arrangement of his See also:definitions, that sense being placed first which appeared first in order of time . In other words, each article in the dictionary 'should furnish an orderly biography of the word of which it treats, each word and sense being so dated that the exact time of its See also:appearance and the duration of its use may as nearly as possible be determined . This, in principle, is the method of the new lexicography . In practice it is subject to limitations similar to those of the vocabulary mentioned above . Incompleteness of the See also:early record is here an even greater obstacle; and there are many words whose history is, for one See also:reason or another, so unimportant that to treat it elaborately would be a See also:waste of labour and space . The See also:adoption of the historical principle involves a further See also:note-worthy modification of older methods, namely, an important See also:extension of the use of quotations . To Dr Johnson belongs the See also:credit of showing how useful, when properly chosen, they may be, not only in corroborating the lexicographer's statements, but also in revealing special shades of meaning or See also:variations of use which his definitions cannot well See also:express . No part of Johnson's work is more valuable than this .
This idea was more fully See also:developed and applied by Dr See also:
- CHARLES
- CHARLES (1270-1325)
- CHARLES (1421-1461)
- CHARLES (1525-1574)
- CHARLES (c. 1319-1364)
- CHARLES (Fr. Charles; Span. Carlos; Ital. Carlo; Ger. Karl; derived from O.H.G. Charal,latinized as Carolus, meaning originally " man ": cf. Mod.Ger., Kerl," fellow," A.S. ceorl, Mod. Eng. " churl ")
- CHARLES (KARL EITEL ZEPHYRIN LUDWIG; in Rum. CAROL)
- CHARLES [KARL ALEXANDER] (1712-1780)
- CHARLES, ELIZABETH (1828-1896)
- CHARLES, JACQUES ALEXANDRE CESAR (1746-1823)
- CHARLES, THOMAS (1755-1814)
The chief difficulty in the way of this use of quotations—after the difficulty of collection—is that of finding space for them in a dictionary of reasonable See also:size . Preference must be given to those which are essential, the number of those which are cited merely on methodical grounds being made as small as possible . It is hardly necessary to-add that the negative evidence furnished by quotations is generally of little value; one can seldom, that is, be certain that the lexicographer has actually found the earliest or the latest use, or that the word or sense has not been current during some intermediate period from which he has no quotations . Lastly, a much more important See also:place in the See also:scheme of the ideal dictionary is now assigned to the etymology of words . This may be attributed, in part, to the recent rapid development of etymology as a See also:science, and to the greater abundance of trustworthy data; but it is chiefly due to the fact that from the historical point of view the connexion between that See also:section of the biography of a word which lies within the language—subsequent, that is, to the time when the language may, for lexicographical purposes, be assumed to have begun, or to the time when the word was adopted or invented—and its antecedent history:has become more vital and interesting . Etymology, in other words, is essentially the history of the form of a word up to the time when it became a part of the language, and is, in a measure, an extension of the history of the development of the word in the language . More-over, it is the only means by which the exact relations of allied words can be ascertained, and the separation of words of the same form but of diverse origin (homonyms) can be effected, and is thus, for the dictionary, the foundation of all See also:family history and correct genealogy . In fact, the See also:attention that has been paid to these two points in the best recent lexicography is one of its distinguishing and most important characteristics . Related to the etymology of words are the changes in their form which may have occurred while they have been in use as parts of the language—modifications of their pronunciation, corruptions by popular etymology or false associations, and the like . The facts with regard to these things which the wide See also:research necessitated by the historical method furnishes abundantly to the modern lexicographer are often among the most novel and interesting of his acquisitions . It should be added that even approximate conformity to the theoretical requirements of modern lexicography as above out-lined is possible only under conditions similar to those under which the Oxford New English Dictionary was undertaken (see below) . The labour demanded is too vast, and the necessary bulk of the dictionary too great .
When, however, a language is recorded in one such dictionary, those of smaller size and more modest pretensions can See also:rest upon it as an authority and conform to it as a See also:model so far as their special limitations permit . The ideal thus developed is primarily that of the general dictionary of the purely philological type, but it applies also to the encyclopaedic dictionary . In so far as the latter is strictly lexicographic—deals with words as words, and not with the things they denote—it should be made after the model of the former, and is defective to the extent in which it deviates from it . The addition of encyclopaedic matter to the philological in no way affects the general principles involved . It may, however, for See also:practical reasons, modify their application in various ways . For example, the number of obsolete and dialectal words included may be much diminished and the number of scientific terms (for instance, new Latin botanical and zoological names) be increased; and the relative amount of space devoted to etymologies and quotations may be lessened . In general, since books of this kind are designed to serve more or less as works of general reference, the making of them must be governed by considerations of practical utility which the compilers of a purely philological dictionary are not obliged to regard . The encyclopaedic type itself, although it has often been criticized as hybrid—as a mixture of two things which should be kept distinct—is entirely defensible . Between the dictionary and the encyclopaedia the dividing line cannot sharply be drawn . There are words the meaning of which cannot be explained fully without some description of things, and, on the other See also:hand, the description of things and processes often involves the definition of names . To the See also:combination of the two objection cannot justly be made, so long as it is effected in a way—with a selection of material—that leaves the dictionary essentially a dictionary and not an encyclopaedia . Moreover, the large vocabulary of the general dictionary makes it possible to present certain kinds of encyclopaedic matter with a degree of fulness and a convenience of arrangement which are possible in no single work of any other class .
In fact, it may be said that if the encyclopaedic dictionary did not exist it would have to be invented; that its See also:justification is its indispensableness . Not the least of its advantages is that it makes legitimate the use of diagrams and pictorial illustrations, which, if properly selected and executed, are often valuable See also:aids to definition . On its practical See also:side the advance in lexicography has consisted in the elaboration of methods long in use rather than in the invention of new ones . The only way to collect the data upon which the vocabulary, the definitions and the history are to be based is, of course, to See also:search for them in the written monuments of the language, as all lexicographers who have not merely borrowed from their predecessors have done . But the wider See also:scope and special aims of the new lexicography demand that the investigation shall be vastly more comprehensive, systematic and precise . It is necessary, in brief, that, as far as may be possible, the literature (of all kinds) of every period of the language shall be examined systematically, in order that all the words, and senses and forms of words, which have existed during any period may be found, and that enough excerpts (carefully verified,credited and dated) to See also:cover all the essential facts shall be made . The books, See also:pamphlets, See also:journals, See also:newspapers, and so on which must thus be searched will be numbered by thousands, and the quotations selected may (as in the case of the Oxford New English Dictionary) be counted by millions . This task is beyond the See also:powers of any one man, even though he be a Johnson, or a See also:Littre or a Grimm, and it is now assigned to a See also:corps of readers whose number is limited only by the ability of the editor to obtain such assistance . The modern method of editing the material thus accumulated—the actual work of compilation—also is characterized by the application of the principle of the division of labour . Johnson boasted that his dictionary was written with but little assistance from the learned, and the same was in large measure true of that of Littre . Such attempts on the part of one man to write practically the whole of a general dictionary are no longer possible, not merely because of the vast labour and philological research necessitated by modern aims, but more especially because the immense development of the vocabulary of the special sciences renders indispensable the assistance, in the work of definition, of persons who are See also:expert in those sciences . The tendency, accordingly, has been to enlarge greatly the editorial See also:staff of the dictionary, scores of sub-editors and contributors being now employed where a dozen or fewer were formerly deemed sufficient .
In other words, the making of a " complete " dictionary has become a co-operative enterprise, to the success of which workers in all the See also:fields of literature and science contribute . The most complete exemplification of these principles and methods is the Oxford New English Dictionary, on historical principles, founded mainly on materials collected by the Philological Society . This monumental work originated in the See also:suggestion of Trench that an attempt should be made, under the direction of the Philological Society, to complete the vocabulary of existing dictionaries and to See also:supply the historical See also:information which they lacked . The suggestion was adopted, considerable material was collected, and Mr See also:Herbert See also:Coleridge was appointed general editor . He died in 186x, and was succeeded by Dr F . J . See also:Furnivall . Little, however, was done, beyond the collection of quotations—about 2,000,000 of which were gathered—until in 1878 the expense of See also:printing and See also:publishing the proposed dictionary was assumed by the Delegates of the University See also:Press, and the editorship was entrusted to Dr (afterwards See also:Sir) J . A . H . Murray . As the historical point of beginning, the See also:middle of the 12th century was selected, all words that were obsolete at that date being excluded, though the history of words that were current both before and after that date is given in its entirety; and it was decided that the search for quotations—which, according to the original See also:design, was to cover the entire literature down to the beginning of the 16th century and as much of the subsequent literature (especially the works of the more important writers and works on special subjects) as might be possible—should be 'made more thorough .
More than 800 readers, in all parts of the world, offered their aid; and when the See also:preface to the first volume appeared in 1888, the editor was able to announce that the readers had increased to 1300, and that 3,500,000 of quotations, taken from the writings of more than 5000 authors, had already been amassed . The whole work was planned to be completed in ten large volumes, each issued first in smaller parts . The first part was issued in 1884, and by the beginning of 1910 the first part of the See also:letter S had been reached . The historical method of exposition, particularly by quotations, is applied in the New English Dictionary, if not in all cases with entire success, yet, on the whole, with a regularity and a precision which leave little to be desired . A See also:minor See also:fault is that excerpts from second or third See also:rate authors have occasionally been used where better ones from writers of the first class either must have been at hand or could have been found . As was said above, the literary quality of the question is highly important even in historical lexicography, and should not be neglected unnecessarily . Other special features of the book are the completeness with which variations of pronunciation and See also:orthography (with dates) are given; the fulness and scientific excellence of the etymologies, which abound in new information and corrections of old errors; the phonetic precision with which the present (See also:British) pronunciation is indicated; and the elaborate sub-division of meanings . The definitions as a whole are marked by a high degree of accuracy, though in a certain number of cases (not explicable by the date of the volumes) the lists of meanings are not. so good as one would expect, as compared (say) withthe Century Dictionary . Work of such magnitude and quality is possible, practically, only when the editor of the dictionary can command not merely the aid of a very large number of scholars and men of science, but their gratuitous aid . In this the New English Dictionary has been singularly fortunate . The conditions under which it originated, and its aim, have interested scholars every-where, and led them to contribute to the perfecting of it their knowledge and time . The long list of names of such helpers in Sir J .
A . H . Murray's preface is in curious contrast with their See also:absence from Dr Johnson's and the few which are given in that of Littre . The editor's See also:principal assistants were Dr See also:
- HENRY
- HENRY (1129-1195)
- HENRY (c. 1108-1139)
- HENRY (c. 1174–1216)
- HENRY (Fr. Henri; Span. Enrique; Ger. Heinrich; Mid. H. Ger. Heinrich and Heimrich; O.H.G. Haimi- or Heimirih, i.e. " prince, or chief of the house," from O.H.G. heim, the Eng. home, and rih, Goth. reiks; compare Lat. rex " king "—" rich," therefore " mig
- HENRY, EDWARD LAMSON (1841– )
- HENRY, JAMES (1798-1876)
- HENRY, JOSEPH (1797-1878)
- HENRY, MATTHEW (1662-1714)
- HENRY, PATRICK (1736–1799)
- HENRY, PRINCE OF BATTENBERG (1858-1896)
- HENRY, ROBERT (1718-1790)
- HENRY, VICTOR (1850– )
- HENRY, WILLIAM (1795-1836)
It is See also:worth noting that the figures given seem to indicate that not very many more words have been added to the vocabulary of the language during the past 15o years than had been lost by 175o . The pages selected, however, contain comparatively few recent scientific terms . A broader comparison would probably show that the gain has been more than twice as great as the loss . In the Deutsches Worterbuch of Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm the scientific spirit, as was said above, first found expression in general lexicography . The desirability of a complete inventory and investigation of German words was recognized by See also:Leibnitz and by various 18th-century scholars, but the See also:plan and methods of the Grimms were the See also:direct product of the then new scientific philology . Their design, in brief, was to give an exhaustive account of the words of the literary language (New High German) from about the end of the 15th century, including their earlier etymological and later history, with references to important dialectal words and forms; and to illustrate their use and history abundantly by quotations . The first volume appeared in t854 . Jacob Grimm (died 1863) edited the first, second (with his See also:brother, who died in 1859), third and a part of the See also:fourth volumes; the others have been edited by various distinguished scholars . The scope and methods of this dictionary have been broadened somewhat as the work has advanced . In general it may be said that it differs from the New English Dictionary chiefly in its omission of pronunciations and other pedagogic matter; its irregular treatment of dates; its much less systematic and less lucid statement of etymologies; its less systematic and less fruitful use of quotations; and its less convenient and less intelligible arrangement of material and See also:typography . These general principles See also:lie also at the foundation of the scholarly Dictionnaire de la langue frangaise of E . Littre, though they are there carried out less systematically and less completely .
In the arrangement of the definitions the first place is given to the most See also:primitive meaning of the word instead of to the most common one, as in the dictionary of the Academy; but the other meanings follow in an order that is often logical rather than historical . Quotations also are frequently used merely as literary illustrations, or are entirely omitted; in the special paragraphs on the history of words before the 16th century, however, they are put to a strictly historical use . This dictionary—perhaps the greatest ever compiled by one man—was published 1863-1872 . (Supplement, 1878.) The Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, prepared under the auspices of the German See also:Academies of See also:Berlin, Gottingen, See also:Leipzig, See also:Munich and See also:Vienna, is a notable application of the principles and practical co-operative method of modern lexicography to the classical See also:tongues . The plan of the work is to collect quotations which shall register, with its full context, every word (except the most familiar particles) in the See also:text of each Latin author down to the middle of the 2nd century A.D., and to See also:extract all important passages from all writers of the following centuries down to the 7th; and upon these materials to found a complete historical dictionary of the Latin language . The work of collecting quotations was begun in 1894, and the first part of the first volume has been published . In the making of all these great dictionaries (except, of course, the last) the needs of the general public as well as those of scholars have been kept in view . But the type to which the general dictionary designed for popular use has tended more and more to conform is the encyclopaedic . This combination of lexicon and encyclopaedia is exhibited in an extreme—and theoretically objectionable—form in the See also:Grand dictionaaire universel du XIX8 siecle of See also:Pierre Larousse . Besides common words and their definitions, it contains a great many proper names, with a correspondingly large number of See also:biographical, See also:geographical, historical and other articles, the connexion of which with the strictly lexicographical part is purely See also:mechanical . Its utility, which—notwithstanding its many defects—is very great, makes it, however, a model in many respects . Fifteen volumes were published (1866–1876), and supplements were brought out later (1878-189o) .
The Nouveau Larousse illustre started publication in 1901, and was completed in 1904 (7 vols.) . This is not an abridgment or a fresh edition of the Grand Dictionaaire of Pierre Larousse, but a new and distinct publication . The most notable.work of this class, in English, is the Century Dictionary, an See also:American product, edited by See also:Professor W . D . See also:Whitney, and published 1889–1891 in six volumes, containing 7046 pages (large See also:quarto) . It conforms to the philological mode in giving with great fulness the older as well as the present vocabulary of the language, and in the completeness of its etymologies; but it does not attempt to give the full history of every word within the language . Among its other more note-worthy characteristics are the inclusion of a great number of modern scientific and technical words, and the abundance of its quotations . The quotations are for the most part provided with references, but they are not dated . Even when compared with the much larger New English Dictionary, the Century's great merit is the excellent enumeration of meanings, and the ac-curacy of its explanations; in this respect it is often better and See also:fuller than the New English . In the application of the encyclopaedic method this dictionary is conservative, excluding, with a few exceptions, proper names, and restricting, for the most part, the encyclopaedic matter to descriptive and other details which may legitimately be added to the definitions . Its pictorial illustrations are very numerous and well executed . In the manner of its compilation it is a good example of modern co-operative dictionary-making, being the See also:joint product of a large number of specialists .
Next to the New English Dictionary it is the most complete and scholarly of English lexicons . Bibliography.—The following list of dictionaries (from the 9th edition of this work, with occasional corrections) is given for its historical See also:interest, but in recent years dictionary-making has been so abundant that no attempt is made to be completely inclusive of later works; the various articles on languages may be consulted for these . The list is arranged geographically by families of languages, or by regions . In each See also:group the order, when not alphabetical, is usually from See also:north to See also:south, See also:extinct languages generally coming first, and dialects being placed under their language . Dictionaries forming parts of other works, such as travels, histories, transactions, See also:periodicals, See also:reading-books, &c., are generally excluded . The system here adopted was chosen as on the whole the one best calculated to keep together dictionaries naturally associated . The languages to be considered are too many for an alphabetical arrangement, which ignores all relations both natural and geographical, and too few to require a strict classification by See also:affinities, by which the European languages, which for many reasons should be kept together, would be dispersed . Under either system, Arabic, Persian and See also:Turkish, whose dictionaries are so closely connected, would be widely separated . A wholly geographical arrangement would be in- convenient, especially in See also:Europe . Any system, however, which attempts to arrange in a consecutive See also:series the great network of languages by which the whole world is enclosed, must be open to some objections; and the arrangement adopted in this list has produced some anomalies and dispersions which might cause inconvenience if not pointed out . The old See also:Italic languages are placed under Latin, all dialects of See also:France under French (but Provencal as a distinct language), and Wallachian among Romanic languages . Low German and its dialects are not separated from High German .
Basque is placed after See also:Celtic; Albanian, Gipsy and Turkish at the end of Europe, the last being thus separated from its dialects and congeners in See also:Northern and Central See also:Asia, among which are placed the Kazan dialect of Tatar, Samoyed and Ostiak . Accadian is placed after See also:Assyrian among the Semitic languages, and Maltese as a dialect of Arabic; while the Ethiopic is among See also:African languages as it seemed undesirable to separate it from the other Abyssinian languages, or these from their neighbours to the north and south . Circassian and Ossetic are joined to the first group of See also:Aryan languages lying to the north-See also:west of See also:Persia, and containing Armenian, Georgian and Kurd . The following is the order of the See also:groups, some of the more important languages, that is, of those best provided with dictionaries, See also:standing alone: EUROPE: Greek, Latin, French, See also:Romance, See also:Teutonic (Scandinavian and German), Celtic, Basque, Baltic, Slavonic, Ugrian, Gipsy, Albanian . Asia: Semitic, Armenian, Persian, Sanskrit, See also:Indian, Indo-Chinese, See also:Malay See also:Archipelago, Philippines, Chinese, See also:Japanese, Northern and Central Asia . See also:AFRICA: See also:Egypt and See also:Abyssinia, Eastern Africa, Southern, Western, Central, See also:Berber .
Read more: DICTIONARY - Online Information article about DICTIONARY http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/DEM_DIO/DICTIONARY.html#ixzz0z2F3Vd48
