1965 LexicographicEtymology
- (Heller, 1965) ⇒ Louis G. Heller. (1965). “Lexicographic Etymology: Practice versus Theory.” In: American Speech, 40(2).
Subject Headings: Etymology, Lexicography.
Notes
- It uses the term “canonical reference form” to refer to a curated record (to distinguish from a closer representation of the true referent).
- It analyzes a proposed lack of progress in etymological annotation theory within lexicography.
Cited By
Quotes
A COMPARISON OF SUCCESSIVE DICTIONARIES, ranging from Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabetical of I 604 through the later works of Bullokar, Cockeram, Phillips, and others, right down to the present and far more complex projects such as the NID 3, reveals that much lexicographic practice has developed in spurts, purely by accident or, often, by virtue of commercial competition. However, in no major area of lexicography has practice lagged further behind theory than in that of etymology.
This article deals with five major flaws in the etymological practice of modern dictionaries:
- I. The failure to bring the etymology consistently back to the form which actually underlies the word rather than to some canonical reference form.
- 2. The failure to etymologize all the morphemes of every word.
- 3. The failure to etymologize all words.
- 4. The failure to mark relevant prosodic features.
- 5. The failure to tap the resources of modern etymological reconstruction for significant analysis in depth.
... The first flaw, then, is the failure of lexicographers to bring the etymology consistently back to the form which actually underlies the word rather than to some canonical reference form, such as the infinitive of verbs or the nominative and genitive singular of nouns or adjectives.
,
| Author | volume | Date Value | title | type | journal | titleUrl | doi | note | year | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1965 LexicographicEtymology | Louis G. Heller | Lexicographic Etymology: Practice versus Theory | American Speech | http://www.jstor.org/pss/453717 | 1965 |