The Computer, A Tool For Dictionary-Making In India

 Susie Andres

 

Introduction

The last decade or two have witnessed a remarkable increase in the production of computers and a significant diversification in the uses in which they are put.  The relavant question, today, in an ever widening area of research in the sciences and in the humanities, as well as in the area of industrial development, is : “How can be ‘harness’ the computer to help us solve our production and research problems?” In order to help you, whose presence at this conference evidences a keen interest n lexicography, answer for yourselves the question, “Can the computer help us with the task of dictionary – making in India?”, I will try to convey some idea of (!) what a computer is, (2) what it can do that can be relevantly applied to dictionary-making, (3) how the lexicographer’s materials and purposes can be “plugged in” to the computer, and (4) what facilities are available for these purposes here in India.

 

1. What the Computer is

The computer is an electronic machine that is capable of performing a number of simple computational operations which may be used to calculate solutions to complex problems –it can add, subtract, divide, and multiply.  IT can be thought of as a large box which contains thousands of little electronically-sensitized storage cells, which comprise the machine’s “memory”.  these cells (usually called memory ‘locations’ or ‘registers’) can be individually activized in such a manner in such sequences that the following functions can be automatically performed :

1.        Data, usually punched or recorded in a specified format, can be read from punched cards or paper tape, or from magnetic tape, and stored in the machine’s memory for immediate processing; or it can be read off one of these and stored (in the same or different format) on magnetic type or punch cards for processing at a later time.

2.             Pieces of data can be shifted from one location to another in the machine’s memory, always can be shifted from one location to another in the machine’s memory, always displacing any information previously stored in the location which is currently being filled with new information.

3.           Arithmetic operations may be performed on bits of data and the results stored in memory locations in the computer, from which they may be printed out or transferred to magnetic tape or punch cards, or they can be retained in the computer memory and serve as new data for other operations.

4.             A number of differing operations may be applied to the same piece of data before a new piece is processed.

5.             Any operation or sequence of operations may be repeated again and again in order to process a large number of stretches of data.

6.             Pieces of data, consisting either of the data supplied by the user or of the results of computation performed by the machine, may be compared with one another for size.  Accompanying “stage directions” indicate what instructions are to be carried out next, given certain results of the comparison.  This operation is one of the main features of alphabetization programs.

II. Lexicographic Functions That the Computer Can Perform

By means of the operations listed above, the computer can do a number of jobs that face the lexicographer.  True, they are all essentially forms of high-speed clerical work, and the dictionary-maker will still need to use his intelligence and skill to execute those phases of his task that require more thought.  However, once the lexicographer’s “raw materials – the language data – have been adequately prepared for presentation to the computer, and once the machine has been supplied with the instructions on how to do the job, it can do the work much more accurately and thousands of times faster than nay human being ever could. The time thus saved leaves the lexicographer free to concentrate on those parts of the total project that require a more rigorous application of his intelligence.  The following are some of the lexicographic facilities that the computer user has at his disposal.

1.             The computer can prepare a concordance from text punched on paper tape or cards and print out the results.  All of the information that is to be accounted for in the concordance (text name, source date word and or morpheme breaks, line and page numbers) must be coded into the text.  There is room for a fair degree of complexity in such a concordance if the aims of the dictionary program call for it.  The computer cannot judiciously select appropriate semantic units, or the best examples of their use; nor can it supply meanings or glosses. However, it can pair glosses with lexical items if a text with matching morpheme by morpheme, word by word, or phrase by phrase glosses comprises the data.  On the other hand, these things can be done by the lexicographer when he has the complete list of words in context, printed in alphabetical order, before him.

2.    It can delete from information stored on tape any stretches of data that are not needed, and are identified as such, and rewrite and reprint the condensed file.

3.             It can make editorial changes-including generalised orthographic changes-in stored data and again rewrite the corrected file.

4.             Using a built-in alphabetization routine, it can alphabetize lists of data according to the Roman order, or, given a set of recording instructions, it can alphabetize such lists in any other systematic order desired.¹

5.             Using one set of dictionary data, properly encoded, it can first alphabetize the whole set using the first item of each entry as a basis for the “sort”, and then it can realphabetize the whole set using the gloss or the meaning from each entry as the basis for the “sort”. That is, it can alphabetize and print out two-way bilingual dictionaries.  In fact, it can prepare dictionaries containing any number of languages, with each of the languages by turn treated as the “target” language.

6.             Incorporating some or all of the above functions, it can arrange blocks of information, such as expanded dictionary entries, as main and sub-entries, and cross-reference these entries.

7.             When appropriately coded, it can prepare tapes that will control the operations of such auxiliary machines as phototypesetters and electro-mechanical plotters. Phototypesetters are machines that prepare photographic masters for offset printing in a variety of type styles, and electro-mechanical plotters are machines that “draw” masters for offset printing, using any form of script whose plotting instructions have been coded into them.  Successful experiments with the former have been carried out at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Computing Laboratory, using the Photon 560 phototypesetting machine², and successful experiments with producing Devanagari characters by the latter method have been conducted at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Bombay , using the Cal Camp Plotter.³

8.             The computer can permanently store processed data on magnetic tape for use in the preparation of future editions of a published work. The data can be read off tape by an editing program, which makes the necessary changes and rewrites the data on tape-in any desired format-ready for the printing-out or typesetting phases of the project. All of this can be done without the long and tedious task of manual manipulation of data, manuscript typing, and type-setting involved in the ordinary production of new editions.

    Perhaps the best example of how much of the manipulatory machinery just described has been utilised in dictionary making is the work done by Wőlfgang Wòlck at the Research Center for the Language Sciences at Indian University , in Bloomington .   Wőlck and his co-workers developed a set of computer programs for the preparation of a computerized dictionary of Andean languages.  (See Wőlck. 1969).  The dictionary is actually a working file of the Quechua language of South America , which has been stored in some part of the computer’s auxiliary memory.⁴ Each file element consists of a Quechua lexical entry with English and Sapnish glosses, and other relevant information.  The kind of information included with each entry is : (1) A file number, used for bookkeeping purposes and for permitting easy access to elements that need revision or correction, (2) Language name, (3) Data item, the head lexical item to which all of the other information pertains (4) Allomorph (s) (5) Derivatives, (6) Grammatical class,  (7) Whether the item is a loan word or native, (8) Dialect of the data item, (9) Source of the data, (10) English gloss, (11) Spanish gloss, (12) Citation(s) (13) Dialectal cognates, (14) Dialect(s) of the cognates, (15) Adopted spelling or variants, (16) Entry date (17) Transcriber’s name, (18) Alphanumeric codes, (19) Semantic domain, and (20) Comments.

    This file constitutes a “master” file from which various kinds of information can be extracted by the computer-when specifically programmed to do so-and printed out in any desired form.  The following are some of the listings that can be obtained :

 

1.             Alphabetized bilingual or trilingual word lists ordered by any one of the languages included.

2.             Listings by dialect.

3.             Headwords and cognates from other dialects-useful for comparative work.

4.             Entries listed according to historical sources of approximately the same date and area of use-useful for the study of historical change.

5.             A listing of all loan words within a specific semantic domain.

6.             Multilingual glossaries.

7.             Comprehensive dictionaries, with cross-referencing and including most of the information given.

 

III. How the Lexicographer Turned Computer Programmer, sets up his System of communication with the Machine.

Perhaps we will most easily gain an insight into what a lexicographer must know and be able to communicate to the computer about his entire project-the goals at each stage of its development and his material-by considering briefly how a computer user would approach his problem.

   The machine cannot “think”.  It can do only what it is instructed to do in a precise, carefully-laid-out plan of work called a computer program.  Before he can write the necessary instructions for the machine, the programmer must plan his procedure.  He does this by drawing up a “blue print”, called a Flow Chart, which graphically describes the order in which the required operations are to be performed.  Following this “outline”, he uses a special computer language to specify one by one the operations which the machine must perform, and the order in which they are to be executed.

   In order to try to get a clearer picture f how this is done, let us look briefly at a flow chart the outlines the processes involve in the production of a concordance.  First of all, let us consider a sampling of the kinds of concordance we might want to prepare.  The column headings in Figure 1 indicated three degrees of complexity among the many that are available to the concordance-maker.  Under INPUT we indicated the form in which the data must be presented to the computer, and under OUTPUT we describe what will be printed out for consumer use.

   It will be immediately obvious that it is the third column that would be of greatest interest to a lexicographer.  Here, the INPUT would consist of text with a unit by unit literal English translation given immediately below each line, an exemplified below.⁵

MAI      BHAARAT         ME       HUU

  I              INDIA              IN         AM

     Each line of data would, moreover, be labelled with an index reference to the text name, page, and line fro which it was taken.  The OUTPUT would be an adequately indexed concordance of all the words in the text or all except commonly occurring words like pronouns, some auxiliary verbs, and postpositions, which are likely to be irrelevent to the purposes of the lexicographer.  This output could then be checked by the lexicographer and culled of all undersirable entries and or citations.  The reduced word list, with accompanying glosses and citation lines, could then serve as the INPUT to the dictionary processing program. 

   Now, consider the logical sequence in which the computer must be made to perform certain manipulations of text data in the process of preparing a concordance.  These operations are outlined in the Flow Chart in Figure 2.  First, the machine reads a line of data.  Then it checks to see if that is the line in the data.  (The last line is marked in a special way).  If the line just read isn’t the last line, then the computer isolates the first word in the line and, after checking to make sure that is has read a word (that is, all the words in the line have not been “used up”), it writes the word, and the line of data from which it was taken, on tape.  Then following the arrow, it goes back and isolates the next word in the line and writes it on tape, again including the line from which it was taken.  This cycle is repeated until all the words in the line have been identified and written on tape.  The next time it encounters the question, “Have all the words in the line been processed?”, it follows the YES arrow back to the instruction to read a line of data; then it goes through the same procedure as before, reading the next line of data and separating out all the words in that line, one at a time.  The it processes the next line, and so on, until it has processed al the lines of data.  This time, when it encounters the question, “Is this the end of the data?”, it follows the YES arrow from the first diamond and goes to a new part of the program.  It reminds the tape on which all the words have been written and CALLS another part of the whole program, called SORT.  This is a subprogram, which reads all the words off the tape and alphabetizes the whole LIST.  When SORT has finished that job⁶, the main part of the concordance program instructs the machine to print out the alphabetically arranged list of words matched by their source lines of data.  When the end of the list is reached, the machine stops.

   Inside the SORT subprogram mentioned above is another subprogram that translates the romanized representatives of Devanagari characters into a number code suitable for alphabetization according to the Devanagari order.  It is also too complex t discuss here, but it might be of interest to include a sample of the

INPUT code, with the characters represented by some of the code configurations,and the number code into which they can be converted.

 

IV. Facilities Available in India

There are large computer installations in several research institutes in India , such as the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Bombay and the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur .  Since I am familiar only with the former institute, I will restrict myself to discuss the facilities available there. The computer installation at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research is comprised of a Control Data Corporation 3600 Compute System, several smaller computers, and some auxiliary machines, one of which is the Cal comp Plotter mentioned above.  The CDC 3600 is quite a large computer, probably the largest in India , and has proved to be an efficient system for the development of the programs described below.

    While working in India under the sponsorship of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dr. Colin Day and Mr. Warren Glover, aided by time grants, developed a series of computer programs that either are dictionary-processing routines or can be used to aid in dictionary-making⁷.  Some of them have since been modified to permit alphabetization according to the Devanagari order and the writing of output in Devanagiri characters. The following is an inventory of the computer programs presently available for use.

1.       Vocabulary-sorting programs that will print out and store on tape for future use (a) vernacular-English and English-vernacular word lists of up to 3500 bilingual entries alphabetized according to either the Roman or the Devanagari order or (B) vernacular-English-regional language, English-vernacular-regional, and regional-vernacular-English word lists of up to 2500 trilingual entries, again in either Roman or Devanagari order.

2.       Editing programs to edit texts and vocabulary lists or to make orthographic changes in vocabulary lists.

3.       Programs that will make frequency counts of words in text and calculate the percentage occurrence of each.  Such counts are useful when words are to be selected for inclusion in a concise dictionary.

4.       A simple concordance program⁸ which can readily be modified to any degree of complexity desired.

5.       A set of programs (in the development of which Dr. Ramani of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, and I, collaborated) which will convert an alphabetized dictionary into Roman and or Devanagari script in a format suitable for offset printing.  Figure 4 is a sample trilingual word list actually produced by computer.

 

The above mentioned programs are constantly being revised.  It is hoped that any or all of them can be made sufficiently flexible and comprehensive to handle many of the dictionary-making needs of India.⁹ I can foresee, moreover, that the development of such files as the one set up for Andean languages would be a notable asset to the field of language research in this country.

 

FOOTNOTES

¹I have used such a device to alphabetize word lists in the Devanagari order.

²See Barnett, 1965

³This project was carried out in collaboration with Dr. S. Ramani, a Research Fellow at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Bombay .  Dr. Ramani wrote the program that generates Devanagari characters and advised me on how to write the actual plotting instructions, which were to be implemented by the program.  I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his willingness to work on this project as well as for all of the time and effort he put into it.  I also want to thank Professor Ashok R Kelkar of Deccan College in Poona for making helpful criticism and suggestions when I was developing an alphanumeric code (consisting chiefly of Roman characters) for Devanagari characters and also when I was designing the Devanagari characters that were to be reproduced by the plotting program.

⁴ It was interesting for me to note that the computer that was used by Wolfgang Wőlck and his associates to develop their Andean dictionary was the same model as the one we use at the Tata Institute in Bombay .  This suggests that it is not too much to expect that we might develop such a project in India .

⁵Idioms would probably best to recorded and treated as units’ that is, word boundaries would need to be eliminated by markers of some sort in order to prevent the treatment of the words in the idiom as separate units.

⁶We need a separate FLOW CHART for SORT, but it is too complex to include here.  It’s main feature is that it arranges words or phrases, which are representated in the machine as numbers, in order of size.  The number representation is normally such that alphabetization will be done in the Roman order, unless other coding instructions are given.

⁷The Summer Institute of Linguistics acknowledges with gratitude the help given by Professor R. Narasimhan, Head of the Computer Group at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, both in giving of his time to discuss some of the projects undertaken by the Institute and also by making grants available for the development of the projects.

⁸This program was prepared by Dr. Ramani of the Tata Institute.

⁹I would like to add that it seems quite reasonable to expect that the characters used in some of the Indian writing system other than the Devanagari could also be designed for production on the Cal comp Plotter.  An interesting interview that I had with Mr. R.K. Joshi, a calligrapher at Ulka Ads in Bombay, earlier in the month (March 1970) gave rise to the hope that eventually a number of complete sets of plotting instructions for Devanagari characters (or any other system of characters) could be prepared to provide the facility of a choice i the calligraphic style to be used for plotted output. (Mr. Joshi’s chief interest is in the development of a simplified and somewhat modified and extended Devanagari script which might be used for all Indian languages).

 

REFERENCES

Andres, Susie and S. Ramani 1970a. “The codification of the Devanagari Script for automatic data-processing.” Indian Linguistics, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 91-102.

----------------------------------------1970b. “A note on programming a character generator for the Devanagari script.” Technical Report No. 82. Bombay : Computer Group at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mimeo.

Barnett, Michael P. 1965. Computer Typesetting: Experiments and Prospects. Cambridge , Massachusetts : The M.I. T Press. Bradley. Henry G., and William R. Merrifield. 1965. “On constructing bilingual dictionaries.” Unpublished paper. North Dakota : Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Harrel, Richard S. “Some notes on bilingual lexicography.” Unpublished paper. Georgetown University .

Kay, Martin. 1969. “The computer system to aid the linguistic field worker.” P-4095. santa monica , California ; The RAND corporation.

Kelkar, Ashok., and Lachman M Kubchandani. 1968. “The possibility of using computer methods for the historical dictionary of Sanskrit : an assessment” An unpublished report. Poona : The Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.

Wőlck, Wolfgang, 1969.  “A computerized dictionary of Andean languages.” Language Sciences. Bloomington : Indiana University .  Research Centre for the Language Sciences.  No. 8, December 1969.

 

Concordance Possibilities

Simple unreferenced with Roman Alphabetization	Unreferenced, with Hindi Alphabetization	Referenced and closed with Hindi Alphabetization
INPUT: Text typed with lines not exceeding 80 characters in length, in whatever Romanization the user chooses to employ for the representation of Indian characters.	INPUT: Text typed with lines not exceeding 80 characters in length, in the code designed to represent Devanagari for the programs described below, or in Devanagari characters in lines not exceeding 50 characters in length. **	INPUT: Text typed in lines of 70 Roman characters (in the specified code) or 40 Devanagari characters with unit by unit literal English translation below each line.  Spaces 71-74 would be reserved for a 4-letter code to identify the text, space 75-78 for the page number of the text, and 79-80 for the line number.
OUTPUT : A list of the words of the text, arranged according to the Roman alphabetical order and each accompanied by the lines of text from which it was taken.	OUTPUT : A list similar to the one described to the left, but arranged alphabetically in the Devanagari order.	OUTPUT: A list of the words from the text, arranged according to the Devanagari alphabetical order and each accompanied by (1) its English gloss, (2) the line of the data from which it was isolated, and (3) the source identification code and the page and line number specifying its location in text.

 ** In this case a key-punch operator would need to be trained to punch the required code directly from the text in Devanagari.

Figure 1

---

Top

Hindi English Collocational Dictionary

Shreeprakash Kurl

A study of Collocational is a study of the nature and potentiality of co-existence of words strung together in a basic sentence. Some linguistics have examined this phenomenon of language under two different terms – Collocation and Colligation.  They defined collocation as the study of the capacity of the co-occurrence of grammatical items.  Collacations present the speaker with an open and wider choice of range of associating lexical items whereas colligations, being the study of the grammatical patterning, leave the speaker with a very closed and fixed choice of items.  However, the present paper cannot afford to draw any water-tight compartment between the two levels of this study and keep them apart  and handle them separately as if they are not a part of a basic sentence.  All the components of a basic sentence are glued together by two types of rules-Grammatical and Semantic.  The grammatical rules provide the syntactic components an order of arrangement whereas the semantic rules provide those components a network of an internal relationship, the potentiality to associate with a particular type of words and reject other types of words.  Thus a collocational study sets up a device to examine the capacity of co-occurrence of the components of a sentence.

             Collocation include two types of expressions-Cliche and Idioms.  When the words become hackneyed and almost meaningless by their over-use they are called cliche. Idioms are a group of words whose meaning cannot be understood just by learning the meaning of its components in isolation.  For instance, a foreigner learning Hindi may know the meaning of the verb ‘ukharnaa’ and also the meanings of all those nouns which can associate with this verb, yet it may still be difficult for him to discover that

 ‘(qaafilaa) ukhaŗnaa’ means ‘(tribe) to move’

‘(tabiiyat) ukhaŗnaa’ means ‘to lose (one’s interest)’

‘(fauz) ukharnaa’ means ‘(army) to disintegrate’

‘(baazaar) ukharnaa’ means (‘market) to be closed’

‘(saakh) ukharnaa’ means ‘to lose (one’s credit)’

             Similarly, the meaning of the noun ‘aavaaz’ may be known to him and also the meaning of the verbs ‘aanaa, uthaanaa, karnaa, khulnaa, tuutnaa’ but when these verbs associate with ‘aavaaz,’ he may find it difficult to figure out that.  

‘aavaaz aanaa’	‘to hear the noice sound’
‘aavaaz uţhaanaa’	‘to raise an objection’
‘aavaaz karnaa’	‘to make a noise’
‘aavaaz kasnaa’	‘ to quip, make a passing remark’
‘aavaaz khulnaa’	‘to regain (one’s lost) voice’
‘aavaaz ţuuţnaa’	‘one’s voice to crack’
‘aavaaz denaa’	‘to call aloud’
‘aavaaz baithnaa’	‘to become hoarse’
‘aavaaz  bharraanaa’	‘to become hoarse’
‘aavaaz maarnaa’	‘to call aloud’
‘aavaaz maariijaana’	‘to become hoarse, have laryngitis’
‘aavaaz lagaanaa’	‘to call aloud’

 Similarly his knowledge about the meaning of hte collocations like ‘acchaa lagnaa, aakh aanaa.  buxaar aanaa, shaadii karnaa’ etc will not help him until he discovers the grammatical and semantic rules about the use of the collocations.  For example, he will be expected to be familiar with the following framework before he ventures to make a possible Hindi sentence using the above collocations.

1	X1	ko	Y(1)	‘acchaa lagnaa’	‘to be pleasing
2	X1		Y1 se	‘shaadii karnaa’	‘to marry X’
3	X1		Y1 se Z1 kii	‘shaadii karnaa’	‘to marry X to Y’
4	X1	ko		‘buxaar aanaa’	‘to have fever
5	X1	kii		‘aakh aanaa’	‘to have pink eyes’

This type of analysis will not only give the learner a readymade grammatico-semantic frame of the target language but will also make him conscious of the nature of the language.

   Collocations could also be a powerful source for the study of complex social traditions of the culture of the target language.  The learner will find the collocation ‘first husband’ or ‘previous husband’ very rare if not totally impossible in the Hindi language.  However, he can quite frequently find the collocations, ‘first wife’ or ‘previous wife’ reflecting upon the male orientation of the Indian society.

   The teaching of Hindi as a foreign language is no more limited to the teachers’ question, “yeh kyaa hai” ‘what is this’ and to the students’ answer, “yeh qalam hai”  ‘this is a pen’ or to the grammatical transformations, like, “mai jaataa huu” ‘I go’ to “mujhe jaanaa chaahiye” ‘I should go’ only.  Today foreign students are getting more and more interested in learning Hindi not only as a vehicle of communication or exchange of thoughts but also as a vehicle of cultural exchange.  The growing strength of the native land of Hindi, together with the strong urge for a better and an easier way of understanding of the country, force the Hindi-linguists to do a lot more than simply writing text-books.  It is my considered opinion that the teaching of Hindi can also be facilitated  by the proper  use of a linguistically oriented collocational dictionary as it is the only place where each word can be treated individually as well as in association with other words.  The tendency to associate is the most fundamental patter into which lexical items enter and it is

X₁= animate, logical subject, always followed by the postposition ‘ko’, therefore always in the oblique case (1,4).

Y₁= either animate or inanimate, grammatical subject, never followed by any postposition therefore in the direct case.

X₁=animate grammatical subject, never followed by a postposition except in the perfective aspect, therefore in the direct case, (2,3)

Y₁=animate, followed by the postposition ‘se’ (2,3)

Z₁= animate, logical as well as the grammatical object, always followed by the postposition

X₁=animate, functioning as an adjective, always followed by an adjectival postposition, therefore in the oblique case, (5)

noticed that the Hindi learners often make mistakes is this area. Such a dictionary will not only help them learn the right associations but will also help them select the right sociolinguistic register and help them acquire competence in translation.

ऊपर (uupar) (X(1) ke+uupar aanaa) to resemble (लड़का बिलकुल अप ने बाप के ऊपर आया हॆ)

1. on	3.above
2. upon, on the top of	4. upstairs
1. ऊपर उठना	a. to rise, aspire b. to be lifted
2 ऊपर उठना	a. to promote b. to lift, uplift
3. ऊपर का	outer, outward
4. ऊपर का खर्च	overhead charges
5. ऊपर का दूध	formula milk
6. ऊपर का पद	higher position
7. ऊपर की बात	a. something supernatural, something demonic, b. formal
8. ऊपर के दाँत	false teeth, dentures
9. ऊपर के लोग	superior officer
10. ऊपर वाला	God
11. ऊपर ऊपर से	a. through the back door b. from the top
12. ऊपर से	a. on the top of b. superficially

माल (maal) m.

1. wealth, property	5. a beautiful girl, a real dish
2. goods, luggage, thing(s)	*6 an ugly boring or crude girl, a dog
3. merchandise	7. a string to turn the spinning wheel
4. delicacise, goodies

माल उड़ाना	to gorge on delicacies
माल काटना	to embezzle
माल खाना	see 1, 2
माल पीना	see 1,2,3
माल मारना	see 1,2,3,4

लगना(lagnaa) Int +

1. to be attached
2. to be harnessed
3. to be fixed
4. to be affixed
5. to be stuck

लगना(lagnaa) Int -

पर में लगना	Y to irritate Y (यह दवा बहुत तेज है। मेरे जरूमों पर लगती है।)
को लगना	Y to agree with X (उनका स्वास्थ्य सुधर रहा है। दवा उनको लग रही है।)
को लगना	Y to agree with X (सुरेश को लगतो है कि पिता जी आज नहीं आएँगे।)

---

Top

Some Problems In Compiling Bilingual Dictionaries

G.N. Reddy

 

This paper presents briefly some of the editorial problems encountered by Indian lexicographers in the  production of bilingual dictionaries with English as the source language. Normally the dictionary making word-whether it be a bilingual one, or  a unilingual one-has two phases or aspects, namely (1) selection of the material, ‘words’, for the main entries and (2) definition and / or explanation for each of the main entry.  And the problems that arise in dictionary making can be discussed under the above two phases or aspects, because they are neither identical nor of the same complexity.  I am, in this paper, concerned only with some of the problems relating to the first aspect, that is, selection of the English ‘word’ material for the main entries in a bilingual dictionary.

   The selection of English words for a bilingual dictionary largely depends upon the judgement of the editor or compiler who necessarily has to take into consideration the type of users of his dictionary and their need.  While unabridged dictionaries in English may contain as many as 500,000 words, the usual desk dictionary or a college dictionary may contain 120,000 to 150,000 words. In these English dictionaries, the selection and inclusion of the word material is decided upon from the point of view of the user. The Indian lexicographers do not seem to have made any attempt to prepare an English word list of their own, taking the Indian user into consideration.  They usually base their word list on one or two of the standard dictionaries in English according to their judgement.  The compilers are usually silent on the criteria for such omissions or additions, even while they acknowledge a particular dictionary their basis. Their selection of word material seems to be more arbitrary than anything else.  To illustrate this point, we can look into the following four English bilingual dictionaries which are largely based on the Concise Oxford Dictionary (COD):

     A few entries given below from the above dictionaries may be examined.

 

COD	KD	TD	BSID	CEHD
(A) baboo/babu	Ö	Ö	X	X
badmash	Ö	Ö	X	X
baksheesh	Ö	Ö	X	X
bandicoot	Ö	Ö	X	Ö

 

1.   “In the matter of selection of words, the committee have taken as their guide the Concise Oxford Dictionary (edition not mentioned).  In the grouping of words under single heading the Conscise English Dictionary by Charles Annandale has been generally followed.  The shorter Oxford Dictionary and the Webster’s International Dictionary have also been frequently consulted for meanings and for additional useful words-scientific, technical etc.”

E.R. Srinivasamurthy,

Chief Editor in the Preface

2.   “The Oxford English Dictionary (Concise.  1958 edn.) be taken as the basis for preparing the basic word list”.

Dr. A.C. Chettiar

Chief Editor in the Preface.

3&4 These two dictionaries do not make any particular reference to any English dictionary but the editors seem to have largely followed C O D.

 

C O D	K D	T D	BSID	CEHD
cabob (s)	x	Ö	x	x
canarese	Ö	Ö	x	x
chela	Ö	Ö	x	Ö
cooly/coolie	Ö	Ö	Ö	Ö
koran	Ö	Ö	x	Ö
(B) albeit-	x	Ö	x	x
cat-, catah-, cath-	Ö	x	Ö	Ö
cheilo-, /chilo	x	x	x	x
ecto-	Ö	x	x	x
pre-	Ö	x	Ö	x
pro	Ö	x	Ö	x
(C) –cy	x	x	x	x
-ery	Ö	x	x	x
-ful	Ö	x	x	x
-fy	Ö	x	x	x
-ry	Ö	x	x	x
(D) Abderite	Ö	Ö	x	x
Abernethy	x	x	x	x
abigail	x	Ö	x	x
absquatulate	x	Ö	x	x
accidie (accedia)	x	x	x	x
Aceldama	Ö	x	x	x
ack emma	x	x	x	x
Agnus Dei	x	x (only. ‘Agnus is given)	Ö	x
alb	Ö	x	x	Ö
Baedekar	Ö	x	x	Ö
braise v.t.	Ö	x	x	Ö
caber	Ö	Ö	x	Ö
calando	x	Ö	x	Ö
camerlingo	x	Ö	x	x
chop suey	x	Ö	x	x
chin chin	x	Ö	Ö	Ö
Christy Ministrels	Ö	Ö	Ö	Ö
crouton	x	Ö	x	Ö
cruller	x	Ö	x	x

 

In the above list, a few samples under four categories are given to show that no dictionary seems t have consistent criteria either for inclusion or for deletion of certain lexical items.  A few Indian words in English are given in category A.  There seems to be no justification to include such Indian borrowings in the Indian bilingual dictionaries, except for those of the items which have undergone some significant phonological and / or semantic change.  Under categories B and C prefixes and suffixes are given respectively and in their entry also, the Indian dictionaries do not seem to have any definite criteria.  A criterion could be set up in this regard at least for such of the prefixes and suffixes which are semantically definable, Category D seems to include usually such words which have little frequency of occurrence from the point of view of the Indian reader.  The lexicographers, in the absence of any definite criteria or frequency study with regard to such words, appear to have made their selection or deletion rather arbitrarily.

    It must be accepted that it will be difficult to maintain that all the words in English vocabulary are of equal importance either to the native or to a foreigner.  Normally, a bilingual dictionary with a definite purpose to serve need not include all the words in the source language.  OED contains approximately half a million words that are defined and explained, and out of this multitude Shakespeare is said to have used 25,000 only.  In each language a few thousand words which constitute the core of the language serve about 90 percent of the communication needs of its speakers.  Thus, it is necessary that the word list for a bilingual dictionary must be made keeping in view the class of users.  Such a list may be made, instead or arbitrarily making it according to the whims and fancies of the editors, by a frequency study based on the English books and writings generally used in India .  This need not be confined to particular linguistic region of India as the English used in India is generally the same for all the linguistic regions.

    We are now under the impact of both the British and the American English.  There is variation among the British and American lexicographers both in their list of lexemes and their spelling.  This again poses a problem for the Indian lexicographers.  Some Americanisms which are not found in British dictionaries are also gaining currency in our country.  For example : bleachers’ bluet, burro, jumbo, okay/ O.K., pinto pixilated etc.  The COD indicates some of these Americanisms with an asterisk.

    It is to be recognised that India is also developing an English of its own which can be termed as Indian English, both in its vocabulary and usage.  To cite a few examples; thread marriage, goondaism, ginger group, naxalite, young turks, kitchen cabinet, lathi charge etc.  Semantic changes which are exclusively of Indian origin can also be seen in some English words.  For example,  ‘printer’s devil (errand boy in a printing press) has come to be used for a mis-print for which we also find ‘Mudrarakshasa’ and ‘Mudranabhuta’ as loan translations in some Indian languages.  The inclusion of such words and usages poses a problem to the Indian lexicographers because a systematic linguistic study on such Indianisms is yet to e undertaken.

    Biographical and geographical terms are usually excluded in earlier English dictionaries, as their proper place was considered to be in an encyclopaedia. The recent trend in lexicography is to include them in the dictionaries.   These items are included in English Dictionaries from the point of view of their importance to an English user.  How far the inclusion of those biographical and geographical terms in toto is useful to an Indian reader, is also a problem to the Indian lexicographer.

    The latest English dictionaries include the abbreviations in the main body itself as we find in American College Dictionary, Webster’s New World Dictionary and Oxford Illustrated Dictionary.  In the Indo-Anglian writings, we come across a good number of abbreviations which are of Indian origin and not found in the English dictionaries.  To give a few examples : AICC, BDO, CPI, DEO, DMO, NGO, DSP, MLA, MLC , MS , ZP, VLW etc.  The abbreviation KGF in English stands for ‘Knight of the Golden Fleece’ Indian, we have a homophonous abbreviation which mean ‘Kolar Gold Fields’.

    Pronunciation key to English words also poses a problem for the Indian bilingual dictionaries.  Various Indian scripts hardly serve to represent fully all the different sounds of English.  Could we evolve an improvised script for each of the Indian languages with additions or diacritics exclusively to be used in the bilingual dictionaries to serve as key to the pronunciation or should we follow the IPA or any other Phonetic System? This is another problem that confronts the Indian lexicographer.  It may also be noted that the American and British dictionaries give different pronunciation for many English words.  As we hear English spoken to-day in India , we find striking regional variations of pronunciation.  IF a standard pronunciation key is adopted n all the English bilingual : dictionaries, it may perhaps to some extent help towards uniform English pronunciation in India .

    I have indicated some of the main problems that an Indian lexicographer of a bilingual dictionary faces in selecting the English words material for the main entries.  I think, they deserve serious considerations.

---

Top

A Note On Compiling Dialect  Dictionaries

Har Kirat Singh And Harjeet Singh Gill

The usual method of compiling the so-called standard dictionaries is to gather material form the available literature and prepare word-slips with their referential meanings and arrange them in alphabetical order.  The aim is to help the reader understand a given “difficult” word when he feels stuck while going through text.  The alphabetical arrangement helps him to locate his desired word in the shortest possible time and since he is already aware of the context, he selects one of the several “meanings” given for that word.  This arrangement is quite handy and has been proved to be very useful to an average reader.

             The problem of preparing dialect dictionaries is fundamentally different.  Generally there is very little or no literature available in the dialect.  So, an alphabetic arrangement is of no help.  Preparing dialect dictionaries is an exercise in what may be called anthropological linguistics.  One can look for broad subjects.  The detailed lexical listings must be made under these general heading since the person who consults such a lexicon is not supposed to have any prior reference.  This approach has been recognized and followed traditionally in dialect glossaries.  The word-arrangement is subject-wise but it is generally nothing more than mere listing with one-word meanings and without any attempt at describing the semantic correlation of otherwise physically unrelated items.

             A dialect dictionary, we believe, should aim at presenting the conceptual structure of village culture.  For example, in the villages around Patiala , the peasants place an earthen lamp, diva, each on four socially important places on the night o Diwali.  This is supposed to bring “good-luck or bonheure” The places are the cremation ground, siva (for the good wishes of the departed); khera, the central place around which the village is constructed (for the well-being of the inhabitants); the village  well where khwaja pir, a Muslim saint (spirit) is supposed to reign (for prosperity through crops); and ruri, garbage heap which is used as fertilizer (for agriculture again).  Now, a dialect dictionary must show the cultural correlation of these physically unrelated objects through the distinctive feature of “good-luck or                        bon heure” on Diwali.

             This does not, however, mean that a dialect dictionary be a dictionary of what may be termed as superstitions but it must be borne in mind that practically each item in our physical environment has a conceptual relation with another.  The main purpose of compiling a dialect dictionary is to give an appropriate description of a given culture.  This aim can be achieved only if we are conscious of the correlated nature of what are generally listed as separate words.  In the kinship terminology, we have the relational oppositions of sister/brother, uncle/nephew, father/son etc. While describing different parts of an implement, we must present the items in their immediate functional relationship.

The example of colour spectrum is given very often in discussing the structure of vocabulary but the cultures differ from each other not only in these universal categories but in semiological structures that have no parallels. Hence , it is important that the scholars compiling dialect dictionaries must involve themselves in ethnological studies.  After all, the aim is not only to show what such and such  a thing is called in this dialect but to present specific cultural correlations which never occur elsewhere.  In other words, our task is to study and analyse the structure of language in its relationship to culture.  This means that compiling a dialect dictionary is necessarily a task of structural semantics which is yet in its infancy in modern linguistics.

 

---

Top

Some Aspects and Problems of Lexicography

N.V. Rajagopalan

 

I

1.             Lexicography and Linguistics both deal with language.  But their purpose and the method of analysis differ.  Inspite of the differences between them they are inter-connected in more than one way.

2.             Linguistics tries to find the rules relating to the structure and system of the language, whereas lexicography is an ordered or graded list of lexis/words of a particular language, region or person.  In other words it deals with the vocabulary i.e. the total lexical stock of a given language or part of it.

3.             There was a general belief that a language is nothing but the total stock of its words, in their several declensions, conjugations and with the constraints regarding their usage in particular contexts. The modern linguistics has been at pains to allay this misconception.  Linguistics makes distinction between in item of lexis and the structure of the language into which the lexical items it.

4.             It will be of much interest to us to recollect the ideas of the ancient Sanskrit grammarians and lexicographers  in this regard.

4-1.       Nighantu and Kośa or Śabda Kośa are the Sanskrit names of a dictionary.  During the pre-Panini period there were many attempts to analyse the language (viz the Vedic Sanskrit).

4-2         One attempt was to simply enlist the words with their modifications.  This was called Śabda Pārāyana (There is a references to this in Patajanli’s Mahabhasya)

Another attempt was the Nirvacana or Nirukta.  Yaksa’s famous Niruktais an example of this method. Śabda Nirvaca was actually segmenting a formative or word into its morpheme components and finding out the signification of the components.  The Nirukta classifies the whole vocabulary of Sanskrit language into four categories-catvāri pada jātāni-nāma-ākhyāta-upasarga-nipātaśca, viz. the names, verbs, the upasarga type of prefix, and indeclinable words.  The morphemes which go to form a word of above nature – i.e. a bound morpheme – do not find a place in the enlisted words of these four categories.  But in analysing an item all the bound morphemes are mentioned with their significations.  The morpho-phonemic changes are examined and the history of the word is traced.  Incidentally the structural features of a word are also described. The Nirukta is actually an encyclopedic dictionary.  

4-3         The third attempt was what is sometimes called Śada-anuśāsana or Vyākarana.) (Pānini, the great grammarian mentions neither of these.) This is an attempt to find out rules regarding how language functions and to formulate the principles of usage.

5.             All the above systems of language analysis have the Śabda as their base.  Śabda means primarily word.  Patanjali mentions about the language as Śabda rasik.  The etymological meaning of the word Śabda is an utterance or an uttered word or sentence.  But the word is mostly used in the former sense.  The distinction between pada and  was an important point in the disciplines of language analysis while the other disciplines like Nyāya, Vaiśesika etc, had little use for such distinction.

6.             The above short description of the ancient Indian thought regarding language makes a point clear that the linguist had the clear conception that the lexis of a language is the raw material which is not created by himself but collected from usage.  Niruktakāra has the clear idea that the description of a word is not complete unless the structural features are described.  Here is the area where lexicography and linguistics overlap or are inter-connected.

7.             Sometimes a distinction is made between lexicology and lexicography ; the former is taken as part of linguistics whereas the latter is considered to be entirely a different subject. Apart fro the methodological implications of lexicography the subject of analysis-lexis-is common to both.

8.             Applied linguistics cannot but take help of lexicography.  The teaching or learning of a language, creative or contemplative writing, translation from one language to another, all these activities have to a take the help of the lexicon or dictionary, that is why an applied linguist has respect for the lexicographer.

9.             The thesaurus gives many words under dictionary viz. lexicon, dictionary, vocabulary, glossary, thesaurus, synonyms, homonyms etc.

 

Are these the same as dictionary ?

 

            A discussion on this point will be very useful for us.  The Sanskrit word Nighantu  is a comprehensive term which includes any kind of listing of vocabulary.  There is distinction between Pātha and Nighantu.  Pātha is grouping of certain items in a particular arrangement.  IT does not mention about the features of the items or the components of the items.  The arranged items (or the set) may form the basis for formulating certain rules of grammar.  The Ganapatha and the Dhātupātha, are parts of Panini’s grammar- along with the Varna samamnaya (the ordered set of sounds) and the Sūtras (the aphorims).  The modern counterpart of pātha is the so called lexicon in the Transformational grammar.  The Nighantu has, apart from the ordering of the items, to give many other particulars about the items.  The following are types of Nighantus, Paryāyakośa, Nānārtha Kośa, Ekārtha kōśa, Lingānuśāsana and then the Nirukta.  There are Prayoga Kośas also.  These are all monolingual lexicons.  The bilingual, multilingual dictionaries and the encyclopaedic words are modern developments.

            The English word dictionary does not include all the types mentioned under Nighantu.  Irrespective of the technical sense of the word, we may, for practical purposes, take into consideration all the various types of Nighantu, as they are use in teaching/ learning a language and also in writing and translation activities.

11.     The various definitions of “dictionary” and the words akin, that tare given in various standard dictionaries make the different aspects of a dictionary clear.  A dictionary should give information about the word in three ways.  It should describe the word, trace its history and compare it with identical or similar items found in the same or other dialects.  The dictionary should explain the phonemic and the morphemic structures of the word, its grammatical modifications and its signification.  The signification again can be described in many ways.

(1) by giving synonyms (2) by defining the concept expressed by the word (3) by giving the etymology (4) by giving the usages.

Giving these in a random way makes the lexicon defective as it is found in many of our dictionaries in vogue.  The cases where the Hindi word citi (ant) is explained as pipilikā, the word bhojana is described in Sanskrit as gala-bila-adhas-sanyogānukūla-vyāpāra or jamana as ‘uttara-deśa-samyogā-nukūla vyāpāra or as it is usually found in a cheap dictionary, any name of a tree as ‘a kind of tree’, not to talk of defective and wrong information given by such dictionaries.

12.     The different types of dictionaries serve different purposes.  A description of the vocabulary of a language with all the aspects fully dealt with will be of immense value as part of the analysis of the language.  Many smaller dictionaries and glossaries can be prepared on this basis.  The needs of an editor of the press, a writer, a translator, a teacher, a student of the mother tongue, a student of a foreign language, a critic, a technician and a linguistic scientist are not the same.  For the learners, again dictionaries of different sizes will be needed according to state of their study.  Keeping all these purposes in mind we must give proper consideration to the preparation of dictionaries.

II

13. The problems connected with the preparation of dictionary relate to the following areas :

(1)     selection of words

(2)     finding their counterparts in other languages

(3)     words of common source with many variations

(4)     presentation (methodological problems)

 

14. Regarding number one, the question arises as to what type of vocabulary must be included in the dictionary for instance :

(i)                   core (basic) vocabulary : peripheral vocabulary

(ii)                 original vocabulary : borrowed vocabulary

(iii)                standard  vocabulary : dialectal vocabulary

(iv)                classical vocabulary : colloquial vocabulary

(v)                  current vocabulary : obsolete vocabulary

(vi)                vocabulary having different registeral characteristics

(vii)               vocabulary of different occupations and special fields of study

 

14. 1.2. Restricting the number of words in a dictionary, gives rise to the problem of choice.  The question about the basis of choice arises.  What is the basis – Frequency, stylistic preferences, or any other ?

14.2.          In a bilingual dictionary finding a word with identical meaning is very difficult.  Words from two languages may have partly identical meaning but the whole semantic area of these words may not be exactly identical.  Ignoring this difference lands the lexicographer as well as the user in funny situations.

14.3.          The signification of words can be explained by a synonym or by definition.  Words denoting a thing or concept and words of structural significance are to be explained by synonyms and usage respectively.  The derivative and elliptical senses must be taken into consideration.

14.4          Words of common source which might have developed new connotations must be carefully dealt with.  Sanskrit words like upanyāsa, caritra, anensana etc. are some such instances.

14.5           The problems connected with presentation – are varying e.g.

(i) What should be the order of descriptive features ?

(ii) What sort of diacritical marks are to be used ?

(iii) What type of usages are to be given ?

(iv) How are the idioms and phrases to be entered ?

15.               Glossaries of various occupations, topics and situations, synonyms, homonyms, vocabularies of particular authors, geographical area, a particular age etc., are some of the times which will be very useful for teaching purposes.

16.               There should be a common system of lexicography for all Indian languages.  The commonness of the Indian languages will facilitate the preparation of bilingual dictionaries for our purposes.

---

Top

Principles And Problems In Lesicology And Lexicography As Developed In The Soviet Union

R.N. Srivastava & R.S. Gupta

The paper expounds the views of SHCHERBA, who distinguishes between two disciplines of language study – the study of lexicon (lexicology) and the applied science of dictionary – creation (lexicography).  The postulates of lexicology are first summarised in Section 1. Then a lexicographical typology of dictionaries is presented and the implications of this for methodology, users, and purpose are briefly suggested under each  parameter (Section 2).  There follows a listing of Soviet works on Hindi lexicology and lexicography.  

            O. The prodigious activity in the area of vocabulary study and a keen interest in evolving a theoretical frame-work for making different types of dictionaries in the Soviet Union – these both reflect that lexicology and lexicography have been recognized by the linguists there as distinct disciplines of language study.  The full length treatment of lexicology even in their various text-books (AGAYAN 1959, BULAKHOVSKY 1953, MUCHNIK 1961, REFORMATSKY 1955) attests to the fact that in Soviet linguistics lexicology exists as an autonomous level of linguistic analysis on a par with phonology, morphology etc.  By contrast, no corresponding discipline has been recognized by the text-book writers of the West, and “to an American observer”, to quote WEINREICH (1963 :61), “the strangest thing  about  Soviet lexicology is that it exists.”  

            Among the many talented  Soviet linguists, as a theoretician in the field of lexicology and as a devoted “dictionary-creator” in the area of lexicography, the name of the late L.V. SHCHERBA still commands a high respect in the Soviet Union .  His views on the various problems of lexicology and his approach towards creating various types of dictionaries¹ (lexicography) are responsible, more than any others, in establishing lexicology and lexicography are responsible, more than any others, in establishing lexicology and lexicography as distinct scientific disciplines and, furthermore, for shaping critically the new directions in these areas.  

            Section 1 of this paper will be mainly devoted to some of the recurrent problems of lexicology and the insights shown by SHCHERBA in resolving them.  This account may also be viewed as a modest contribution towards constructing a theoretical frame-work for lexicology, the basic tenets of which, though implicit in the writings of SHCHERBA, have not been explicitly stated and formally defined.  The paper, thus, may also be taken as a rejoinder to the statement made by WEINRIECH (1963 : 66) : ‘In the considerable body of Soviet literature on lexicology, it is surprisingly difficult to find a comprehensive statement of the theoretical foundations and research goals of the linguistic disciplines.” SHCHERBA’s approach towards linguistic study is the outcome of a fruitful blending of theory and practice.  This has already been shown elsewhere (SRIVASTAVA 1968; 1969) in respect of phonology and language learning.  The same is true regarding lexicology and lexicography : he enriched his theories from his experience while working on the Russian (monolingual) dictionary  -Slovar russkogo jazyka Academii Nauk -  and creating a bilingual Russian-French dictionary ; at the

¹ In the preface to his Russian-French dictionary (1939) SHCHERBA expresses his concern at the scornful attitude of Soviet linguists of the time towards lexicography.  It is owing to this attitude and their deficient training in the field that according to SHCHERBA, dictionary-making was till then confined only to the “compilation” (sostavlenie) activity.  To him, dictionary making is a scientific activity and dictionaries are “creation” (sazdanie) rather than compilation.  For creating an object, . . .  the nature and function of its constitutive elements must be worked out in detail, and consequently SHCHERBA (1940 : 72) was of the opinion that “any word which is even slightly complex in its nature must be a topic for a scientific monograph and therefore, it is hard to expect to complete any good dictionary with speed.” same time, “all of his lexicographic work is impregnated with the ideas connected with lexicology,” (Iseriga 1951 : 87).  

            Section 2 is taken up with the elaboration of the basic typology of dictionaries and the methodological decisions dependant on this typology.  

            1.0 The following are the basic tenets underlying Shcherba’s theoretical framework and research goals in the area of lexicology.  (Though each of these postulates demands fuller exposition, we will confine ourselves for the present only to a summary statement).  

1.1 Language is a dialectal unity of thought process and symbolic action and thus the concept of sign finds its full relevance only as a “bridge” between psychology and linguistics.  This means that, according to Shcherba, language should be regarded not merely as a means of communication, but as a symbolic activity of thought process (compare this concept with that of Saussure who holds the view that in “linguistics proper” sign should be treated  “in itself or for itself”).  

In language, thought process and symbolic action shade into each other and the overlap represents the verbal symbol, the basic unit of which is word.  By ‘unit’ Scherba means that the smallest product of analysis which keeps all the properties of the level of description of which is a unit (1962; 1910; 233).  However, it should be noted that Shcherba holds that “the psychological primitive is the sentence – it is not that the sentence is constituted of words, but a word is born from the sentence through an analytic process (and, therefore, is not a scientific construct) and you know it is born and (hence) it exists.” The relationship between the thought process and the symbolic action has been represented analogically by the arrangement of knots and threads in a net.  (See Fig. 1.). Note that the word (a knot) exists simultaneously on two dimensions: as a functional entity or an element of symbolism on the horizontal axis, and as a thought element on the vertical axis.  

Though in language symbolic action and thought process interpenetrate so much that it become impossible to isolate them, ontogenetically they have different roots (Vygotsky 1962 : 44.) The consequence of the deep interpenetration is that language begins to function a  filter between the objective world and the speaker.  IT is for this reason that Shcherba (1962) wrote that “in every language the world is represented differently. We confuse things (items) with words- things are understood in that form in which they are given to us in words, and the supreme act of cultural development rests in setting free the concepts from the imprisonment of words.”²  

1.2. The whole field of language is divided into two-lexicon and grammar; the former is “the designation of autonomous objects of thought” while the latter can be understood as “the expression of relationship between the objects” (Shcherba 1945:16).  The level of grammar has four sub-systems-phonetics, word-formation, form-formation, and syntax.  

The word is a unit of the sentence and the sentence has two distinct aspects-one related to lexicon and the other to grammar.  Therefore, a word may fall into categories-lexical (word) and grammatical (word).  Thus, “all the auxiliary words like prepositions, conjunctions, copula, some of the pronouns, many prepositional and conjunctive expressions exist only as grammatical items, and, hence, totally disappear from the dictionary.” (Shcherba 1945 : 16).  

The same item may be lexical in one context and grammatical in another.  For example.

 He was in America (lexical)

He was an American (grammatical)  

            Similarly, the Hindi word jā (nā) can have two functions –lexical (to go) and grammatical (passive marker); rah (nā) can have three functions – grammatical (progressive aspect marker), lexical (‘to live’), and lexical compounding as an intensifier (continuation of a state) (cf. Beskrovny 1960).  

            Grammar deals with the rule-formation activity and the words generated through such an activity will always be grammatical words.  Each language has inumerable ways of generating ‘new’ words.  Contrary to this, the lexicon is concerned only with already ‘made’ words (Shcherba 1945 : 17).  

            1.3. It should be asserted that if lexicology is a distinct level, its basic unit should also be distinct from the units of other levels.  Lexical meanings are often confused with morphemic meanings.  But

²Observe that this is not exactly equivalent to the Whorfian concept.  SHCHERBA talks only about the word, conceding thereby, that on the sentence level of expression, any thought expressed in any language is translatable into any other.

Morpheme is a unit of symbolic action, i.e., grammar (strictly speaking, a sublevel of grammar, i.e., morphology).  It is altogether a different situation when a morpheme may exist as (lexical) word, and then it may have a lexical meaning as well.  As all the units of grammar derive their significance by rule-function, morphemic meaning should also be defined in terms of ‘rule of word usage’.  On the contrary lexical meaning is defined by the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations between the autonomous objects of thought.  The two types of meaning have been shown in Fig. 2.  

How a lexical unit derives its semantics (psychological content) out of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations can be demonstrated by taking the autonomous objects of thought (relate to the ‘mode of movement’) of which a native speaker of Hindi is in possession.  Fig 3 defines the semantic range of three Hindi lexial items – pōedal ‘on foot’, gārī ‘kinds of transport on land’, and jahāj ‘kinds of transport in air or on water’.  The lexical item gārī can be qualified by many other lexical items, but all of them must have a mode of transportation [-person, +land] e.g. mōtar – ‘motor’, rēl-‘rail’, ghōrā – ‘horse’, bōēl – ‘bullock’ etc.  On the other hand ‘jahāj’ can have only those which are [-person, -land], e.g. havāi – ‘air’- or pānī – (-kā) ‘water-‘. It is worth nothing that the qualifying lexical items in the collocations are mutually exclusive.  

            The upshot of the above discussion is that the distinction between meaning as a sign-function and meaning as a lexical-function must be made; the latter concerns with a unit which is psycholinguistic, while the former defines the semantic component of a sign (Leontev 1965).  

                1.4  By the very definition of ‘lexical word (lexeme) polysemous words are different words rather than one lexical unit with different meanings (see the discussion on the Russian word igla in Shcherba 1940 : 70-73).  

            Similarly Shcherba (1945:19) considers that truba ‘ trumpet’ is a different word from its derivative trubač ‘trumpet-player’ because the latter designates a person while the former item designates an inanimate object.  But truba and the derivative word formed out of the diminutive suffix-očka i.e. trubačko are the same lexical items.  To take an example from Hindi, the pairs given in set A will be two different lexical items (as they refer to two different autonomous objects of thought) while the pairs in set B will be variants of the same lexical item.  

A.  1. čām	‘leather’		1. čamār
2. lōhā	‘iron’	+ suffix for =	2. luhār
3. sōnā	‘gold’	profession - ār	3. sunār
B.  1. ām	‘mango’	+ diminutive	1. amiyā
		suffix	2. khatiyā
		–iya	3. puliyā

1.5. Word-formation may be realized through morphological, phonological (morphemic alternation), or word-compounding processes.  It is in the treatment of  compound words that Shcherba’s contribution is considered significant.  

            Compound-words, as generally formed by the samāsa-process in Sanskrit and German, are considered by Shcherba as words only on account of their form.  Shcherba considers them essentially as simple units of ‘parole’ which he call ‘syntagm’.  Most of the compound words in these languages are formed out of the speech process (‘parole’) and do not enter into the repertoire of ‘langue’ (Shcherba 1945 : 9).  

            As opposed to such syntagms, there are compound words which are compound only in the historical perspective or sign-delineation; otherwise, synchronically they exist only as a simplex.  For example paro-xod ‘steam-boat’ (i.e., steamer), paro-voz ‘steam-engine’ (i.e. engine) area according to Shcherba simplexes.  A parallel example rom Hindi will be jala-vāyu ‘water-air’ (i.e. climate).  

            Word-compounding elements may actually perform a discriminatory function in designating and locating the autonomous object of thought.  By form they may be compound words; but by function they are lexical items.  Such words have been classed by Shcherba as ‘potential words’ (1945 : 18). Russian examples – železnaja doroga ‘ferrous way’ (i.e. railway), zubnaja pasta ‘dental paste’ (i.e. tooth paste).  English examples are black-berry, black-board; Hindi examples are kāmadeva ‘name of the god of love in Hindu mythology’ and šivarātri ‘name for a particular religious day’.

            Word, as a unit of language, can be defined only in relation to its form and content.  Shcherba’s four types of words (mono-, bi-, potential-, and syntagm-) are thus based on the different combinations of features which are binary in function and bilarteral in dimension (see Fig 4.).

1.6. In summary, it can be said that Shcherba’s model presupposes the following theoretical foundations for lexicology.

(1) Lexicology is a distinct level of linguistics and is directly opposed to grammar. (Compare this with the stand taken by Trager (1949 : 5) – “lexicology often passes out of the field of linguistics into metalinguistics . . .” Similar is the view of Bloomfield (1933 : 274) who thinks that “the lexicon is really an appendix of the grammar.....”).

(2) The basic unit of lexicology is the lexical word (lexeme which is a unit by its own right, distinct from all other linguistic units. A lexeme may be defined as “the designation of the autonomous unit of thought.” (Compare this with Whorf’s definition (1956 : 160) which equates lexeme with the ‘stem’.) According to the descriptivists like Trager (1949:5) lexicon is only a list of morphemes, and for Hockett (1958 : 171) “a lexeme is always a grammatical form, by definition.”

(3) As language is a dialectical unity of thought process and symbolic action, the researcher is confronted with the interpenetrating factors operating between these two. IT is for this reason that the concept of word as a unit of sentence structure moves from the lexical to the grammatical field and vice-versa. (Compare this stand with that of Wells (1947) who considers that a word is a ‘heterogeneous’ term and hence it should be excluded from linguistic description).

A word may be lexical or grammatical.

A word may be definable by its phonetic form alone (then it is a syntagm), or by its content alone (then it is a potential word), or by different opposite combinations of form and content (then it can be either a simple or a complex word).

(4) Similarly ‘meaning’ (the most abused term of the time) is also not homogeneous. The model presupposes that a language has no homogeneous semantic basis (Zvegnitsev 1957 : 93). There are two types of meaning : the psychological component of the meaning related to the thought process, and the sign component of the meaning related to the symbolic action. (Compare this treatment with that of Hjelmslev (1953) or Antal (1953) who considers that “meaning is not a psychic phenomenon but that is objective and does not primarily exist in the minds of the members of the speech community....’’ (Antal 1953).)

(5) By definition, polysemous words are not one lexical item with different meanings, but rather different ‘autonomous objects of thought’ assigned to different lexical items. In terms of the present-day discussion, the Shcherba model favours the stand of Weinreich (1966) rather than that of Katz and Fodor (1963) in regard to the concept of lexical item.

(6) The psychological element of semantic content namely, lexical meaning, is like a field – “obščeje” (the universal) which is realized only through the individual. (For the concept of ‘universal’ and ‘individual’, see Srivastava 1959.) The range of the lexical meaning is defined by the paradigmatic and syntagmatic opposition in which a given, lexical item stands against all other lexical items of a language.

2.0. The cardinal point concerning dictionaries must not be lost sight of, that they are ‘creation’ rather than ‘compilation’ Furthermore, lying behind them are the purpose and goals which determine a great many methodological decisions for reorganizing the data into a properly presented lexicon.  As the purpose and goals for making dictionaries are always set against the practical needs of the user, the orientation of dictionaries differs from type to type, i.e., the choice in various types of dictionaries is related to the value-judgements arising out of the governing purpose.  

            Thus, three basic factors come to the forefront in evaluating any particular type of dictionary : (1) the purpose, (2) the user, and (3) the methodology.  It is in the context that Shcherba wrote (1940 : 54) “Of course, one of the basic problems of lexicography is the problem of different types of dictionaries.  It bears a direct practical significance and somehow the problem has always been empirically decided”.  In all, Shcherba talks about nine different types of dictionaries (1) Reference (Vade mecum)-RD, (2) Academic-AD, (3) Encyclopaedic-EnD, (4) Thesaurus-ThD, (5) Explanatory-ExD’ (6) Bilingual-BD, (7) Ideological-ID, (8)Synchronic-SD, and (9) Diachronic-DD.  

            When opposed to the type ID, ExD and BD are classed in one group and the common group is termed as Common Dictionary-CD.  The two types CD and ID are commonly grouped as General Dictionary-GD and opposed to EnD.  In his paper entitled “An attempt towards the general theory of lexicography”, Shcherba (1940) tries to unsnarl the theoretical base and premises on which different types of dictionaries are created.  This he does through a series of dichotomies, i.e., (1) AD vs. RD, (2) EnDvs. GD, (3) ThD vs. CD, (4) ID vs. CD, (5) ExD vs. BD, and (6) SD vs. DD.  

            In this paper we propose to delimit our discussion to exploring the different parameters and registers which underlie the different types of dictionaries and which, in a way, influence a great many decision in respect of the methodology of lexicography.  A schematic representation of the typology of dictionaries based on different parameters and registers is proposed (see Fig. 5).  It should be mentioned here that though our attempt has been to explicate the parameters and registers envisaged by Shcherba, for the sake of presentation and further discussion, the order of parameters that has not been followed does not represent to one Shcherba proposes.  

2.1. Based on the concept of overall pattern and sub-systems, dictionaries may be classified as RD and AD.  The overall pattern includes every lexical item that is in the repertory of a given language, productively or receptively.  Here, the lexicographer accepts the complexities and ‘heterogeneity’ of  a language in all its dimensions; temporal and spatial; social and cultural. RD is representative of that dictionary which has been characterized by Shcherba as type “behind which does not lie any unified language consciousness : the collected words may belong to heterogeneous speech-groups of different periods and which do not in the least form a system” (1940 : 55).  

            Contrary to this, AD is based on the concept of ‘coexistent systems’.  Here, a lexicographer, by accepting certain defined parameters, consciously selects his data so that the lexicon of a language, regardless  of its heterogeneity, turns out to be a self-contained and homogeneous system.  This type of dictionary is characterized by Shcherba as a type “at the root of which lies a unified (real) language consciousness of a defined speech-group of a specified time-span” (1940 : 55).  

            Based on this parameter, these two types of dictionaries, according to Shcherba reflect the following differences :

RD	AD
(i) Speech-groups are different, hence lexicon is heterogeneous	(i) Speech-groups are defiend, hence lexicon is homogeneous.
(ii) The aim is to know the meaning of one or the other words	(ii) The aim is to verify whether or not in this or that situation, this or that (already) known word can be used.
(iii) Descriptive in nature	(iii) Prescriptive in order to establish stylistic norms.

It is obvious that dialect dictionaries in general fall within the RD-type, but if the region is defined and the lexicon is selected order to give a detailed picture of the regional lexicon, the dictionary will be considered to be of the AD-type .  All technical dictionaries made for the use of concerned professionals are of the AD-type.  

            It is in fact the lack of knowledge of the aims and objectives and, consequently the methodological principles following thereform in respect of these two types of dictionaries, that the publication of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary evoked a bitter response, which is nothing more than “a massive and shameless display of ignorance of simple linguistic facts and of long established lexicographic principles” (Allen 1964 : 433).  To think that the lexicographer as a linguist-reporter is superior in kind to a linguist-legislator (Mathews 1955) is also a fallacious stand because lexicography is an applied science and, like other applied sciences, its methodology is conditioned by the aims and objectives.  

2.2. The second parameter drawn for organizing the lexical material is based on the nature of the relationship between the significant and the signifié; the relationship may be fluid or rigid.  Where the relationship is fluid we find lexeme in the form of a ‘word’, and where it is rigid a ‘term’.  

            “A word”, to quote Vygotsky (1962 : 146), “means both more or less than the same word in isolation : more, because it acquires new content; less because its meaning is limited and narrowed by the context.” It is due to this fluid relation that the word mean in English depending upon different uses, conveys eight different senses – ‘insignificant’, ‘cruel’, ‘intend’, ‘result in’, ‘signifies’, ‘explanation’, ‘implies’, (Alston 1964 : 10).  

            On the other hand, a lexeme become a ‘term’ when it shows a ‘rigid relationship; it stands for a fixed notion of a given theory.  ‘The status of them in the vocabulary is considered as dual : on the one hand, systematiciy is manifested at its utmost in a term; on the other hand, a term enters a system of notions of a given sphere of terminology, which does not necessarily coincide with the system of the vocabulary of a given language. Therefore, a term is a ‘servant of two masters’ and cannot be a perfect example of a word regarded as a member of a lexical system.” (Reformatsky 1967 : 125.)  

            Proper nouns are not ‘terms’ because the signified object is not defined against any specific theory, but they also, like terms, have a rigid relationship, i.e., they refer to fixed objects of the objective world (in contrast to a word which refers to the autonomous object of thought).  

            Thus, the dictionary which selects lexicon based on a rigid relationship between the significant and the signifié is of the EnD-type while that which is concerned with the lexicon having a fluid relationship is of the GD-type.  

            Here, we would like to discuss in brief the solution the Shcherba offers for two of the problems which a lexicographer has to face during his work on both EnD and GD :  (1) What should be the underlying principle for including or rejecting items of the dictionary of the EnD-type for the GD-type dictionary ? (2) What should be the manner of offering meaning for ‘terms’ if they are selected as items for GD?  

            Shcherba’s answer for the first problem is in favour or including in GD also those lexical items which, due to usage, lose their specificity.  This happens because proper nouns may, at times, be noun is related to indefinite ones.  For example, see how the semantic component of meaning (of the word ‘philosopher’) is actualized in the two sentences given below:

 (i) A philosopher/philosophers is /are in the habit of appreciating form. (Common noun in a strict sense).

 (ii) A/The philosopher went to the interlocutor.  (Common noun referring to a specified person).  

            Shcherba argues that thought Khlestakov is a name (proper noun) of a character of Gogol’s comedy Revizor, his very name projects the image of an impudent liar and a flap; the name has lost its reference to an individualized character, so much so , that in Russian we get a derivative word like xlestakovščina.  Similar words from Hindi would be rām, rāvan, vibhsan etc.

            As regards the second problem, Shcherba is of the opinion that if a term in EnD should derive its meaning by the place it occupies in the theory of which it is a term, its semantic component in GD must flow from the social situation in which it is used by a native speaker in overall pattern (and not as in a restricted code).  Thus, to take Shcherba’s own example, the manner of referring to the meaning of a term like straight line will be different for EnD (for geometry) and GD; in EnD if it is somewhat like ‘the shortest distance between two points’, in GD it will be explained as ‘a line which deviates neither to the right nor to the left (and moves neither up nor down).’ It should be noted that the same ‘term’-say, a term like particle may mean differently in EnD  and GD, and the difference can even be noted in two EnDs if they refer to two different theories:  

particle in GD –1.	1. ‘a miniute piece or amount’
	2. ‘a minor part of speech; as an article (the), conjunction etc.’ (Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary)
particle	1 ‘marker’ (EnD1-linguistics, Bloomfield 1938 : 199)
	2. ‘a thing which has no precise position or velocity (EnD2..... physics, Frank 1958)

2.3. The parameter on which dictionaries are classified as ThD and CD concerns really with the distinction between what Sapir calls language material and language system.  The latter is Saussure’s ‘langue’, while his concept of language material can be understood in the sense of the term ‘text’ as used by Gardiner (1951 : 329) : “It is true that the term ‘text’ is, in ordinary parlance, confined to what is written or printed, but for the purposes of a linguistic theory the term can and should be extended to anything that has been spoken or reported as spoken on some particular occasion.....”

            Long before the transformational grammarians, Shcherba, as a linguist, put forth hsi laudable goal of finding our the native speaker’s intuition in language description.  But at the same time he laid stress on “differentiating the living language process which goes on in the consciousness of a native speaker from that of artificial linguistic procedures which are merely a convenient tool for certain operations carried out by the linguists themselves” (Srivastava 1969 : 51).

 According to Shcherba, it is on the basis of ‘parole’ (rcčevaja dejatelnost) and language material (jazykouyimaterial) and a speaker deductively evolves his linguistic consciousness. (Saussure’s ‘faculte du language’ corresponds to Shcherba’s rečevaja sposobnost (Shcherba, 1931).

         The distinction between the two types of dictionaries – ThD and CD, lies in the fact that the former is directed towards building and evolving linguistic ‘intuition’ by putting language material (as exhaustive as possible) at the disposal of a user (and hence it insists even on listing hapax legomena) while the latter attempts at explicating the ‘intuition’.  

The following may be considered as the main differences between these two types of dictionaries :  

ThD	CD
i. Evolves ‘intuition’.	i. Explicates ‘intuition’.
ii. Meaning, from the point of view of the user, is assumed not defined	ii. Meaning is assumed as defined.
iii. Data-oriented, process-based	iii. Model-oriented, explication based
iv. Deductive process in focus.	iv. Vade-mecum in focus.
v. Stress on the specific meaning  of ‘allo-variants’ (through which a speaker is supposed to know the ‘universal’).	v. Stress on the ‘universal’ meaning of a lexical item i reference t which ‘allo-variants are illustrated.
vi. Citations are given for all those usages where lexical item is capable of projecting a different image	vi. Citations to illustrate the meaning,

2.4.   The parameter on which dictionaries are divided into CD and ID types is the same that divides linguistic units into expression and content.  It should always be borne in mind that in reality all linguistic units are composite wholes, and any such bifurcation to be taken as artificial.  IT is only for practical purpose and use that  a linguist lays stress on one aspect or the other.  

            The main difference between CD and ID is that the former organizes its material on lexical items, defined first as ‘phonetic word’, while the latter accepts them first as ‘content word’.  This leads to the different treatment of polysemous words as a dictionary entry; CD, like Katz and Fodor (1963), considers them as one item with different meanings, while ID favours the approach of Weinreich (1963).  

            As the CD is based on the opposition of words mainly on the expression level, the phonetic forms demand the organization of the dictionary on alphabetic lines.  Contrary to this, as concept-words are items of thought and thought has different dimensions of realization, lexical items in ID are grouped into ‘families’ where each one of them stands for one particular  psychological dimension.   In a qualified sense it can be said then that the concept-words are, in fact, those lexical items which, being menifested in phonetic complex, in general (except in cases of homonymy) evolve, more or less, a complex system, and this system is expressed in ID in such a way that they fall under one lexical item, but, in fact, are actualized by different signs, letters etc.  (Shcherba 1940 : 78).  In this respect it should be noted that dictionaries of synonyms are, in a sense, one of the sub-types of ID.

2.5. The parameter on which ExD and BD are placed in binary opposition is mainly conditioned by the different motivation and objectives with which a user consults the dictionary. Users of ExD are native speakers, and the target set for creating ExD aims at native speakers with a view to explain one or the other lexical item which might be half-known or totally unknown to them.  Users of BD are not native speakers of the language and they approach the language with the primary aim of understanding texts foreign to them by finding equivalents in their own language.  

            Shcherba;s advice to lexicographers working on BDs in the Soviet Union has been the main driving force for shaping the new critical directions in the creation of good dictionaries of the BD – type. A summary statement will, therefore, not be out of place here.

 (1)     Remember that there are no two languages which have identical lexical items and semantic systems, and hence, in each language the world is represented differently.  We conceive things in the form in which they are given to us in words.

 (2)     The so-called equivalent words across languages are never equivalent in semantic range. For example, the Russian word stol is translated in French by an equivalent word table, but the French word stands for the meaning ‘desk (for writing)’ or ‘table (of figures)’, while the Russian word designates ‘desk (for writing)’, ‘(cooking) board’, and ‘department’ (Shcherba 1940:65).

 Thus, it is incumbent upon the marker of BD to give the equivalent words not in isolation, but in a system in which the word stands (at least the overlapping area must be covered).  Following this lien Soviet linguist-translators (Gak and Lvin 1962 : 19) enter in the French-Russian Dictionary relationships in the manner given below :  

A. éducation = 1, 4	1. vospitanie = A, B
B. formation = 1, 2	2. podgotovka = B, C
C. instruction = 2,3,4,5	3. obrazovanie = C,D
D. enseignement = 3,5,6	4. prosveščenie = A,C
E. apprentissage = 5	5. obučenie = C,D,E

 In Shcherba’s view, on account of practical difficulties, BD cannot offer real meaning and the exact semantic range for the words of a second language.  It can (and so it does) only help in conjecturing about the possible meaning in a given context.

Under such conditions, Shcherba advises the users of BD to avoid assuming the load  of conjecturing and shift to ExD.  According to him BD (in the form it exists today), is useful only for beginners. A new type of BD is, thus, necessary-wherein the effort should be directed towards overcoming the limitations of BD by palliative measure.  The new type of BD should have the primary objective of letting the user move in the thought domain of the second language by releasing their concepts from the imprisonment of words with which they are habitually associated.

BD, according to Shcherba, is a type where the lexicon must be supplemented by grammatical and stylistic apparatus as a index for the usage of lexical categories.

2.6. The last parameter which distinguishes SD from DD is relatively straightforward in so far as the theory of linguistics is concerned, but it is the most confusing one with reference to lexicography.  The difference between SD and DD is conditioned by the temporal factor.

Shcherba raises a basic question -  what kind of dictionary can be labelled DD? Should one consider a dictionary of the DD-type because it is based on the history of language and provides enough facts about the word etymology of that language? Furthermore, can we consider a dictionary of the DD-type if it claims to be ‘A dictionary of old-language upto xth century’?

For example , the purpose, as stated in the Preface of The Oxford English Dictionary, originally entitled A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, is as follows :

             “The aim of this dictionary is to present in alphabetical series the words which have formed the English vocabulary from the time of the earliest record down to the present day, with all the relevant facts concerning their form, sense-history, pronunciation, and etymology.” Can this dictionary be classed within the DD-type?

           Shcherba’s answer to this question is an emphatic ‘no’.  to cover every aspect of a language is the function of a RD. According to Shcherba DD is that type of dictionary which first of all, like AD, must define the temporal axis on which it wants to build up its lexicon, i.e., it must settle the starting point in the history of that language.  Secondly it must register every lexical item which falls within that domain; thirdly, the listing should be exhaustive in the sense that it should include not only possible ‘becoming’ words and ‘becoming’ meanings but also the dead words; fourthly, it must reveal the changes in the form content relationship existing within a word; and finally, it should reveal the movement of the lexical system itself, i.e., it should reflect changes in the system as a whole.

DIAGRAMS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

[This consolidated bibliography covers references in the paper, a selection of Soviet works on lexicology and lexicography, and Soviet works on Hindi lexicology and lexicography.

            Works in this last category are marked with asterisk.  These certainly testigy to the constant effort on the part of the Soviet scholars to grapple with the various problems related to lexicogaphy and word-formation of Hindi.  It must, however, be stated that not all the words mentioned herein are a  high standard; some of them, though rich in observations, violated even the most obvious principles of lexicology.  A look at them will convince anyone that none of tem reach the standard of the work done in Soviet Union on some other languages, like French (Gak 1960), German (Levkovskaya 1956), English (Smirnitsky 1956), Lak (Khaydakov 1961) and some others.]

Agajan, E.B. 1959. Vvedenie v jarykoznanie. (Introduction to Linguistics); Ervan.

Allen, H.B. (ed.) 1964. Readings in Applied English. New York .

Alston, W.P. 1964. Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs : Prenctice Hall.

Antal, L. 1963. Questions of Meaning. The Hague : Mouton.

*Barannikov, A.P. 1927. Slovarnoe Potorenie v xindustani Vostočnye zapiski (Lexical Repetitions in Hindustani). Leningrad .

*-----, 1929.  The Persian Elements in the Urdu Language.  Izvestiga AN SSR.

*Barannikov, P.A. 1959. Hybrid Words in the Hindi Language. Hindi Review Varanasi .

*------, 1961. Style Synonyms in Modern Hindi. IL 22 64-81.

*------, 1961. Absoliutnye sinonimy v sovremennom xindi. (Absolute Synonyms in Contemporary Hindi). Vestnik Leningradskogo universiteta; 29. 122-135,

*-----, 1962. Leksičeskaja sinonimika jazyka xindi vosveščenii indijskix lingvistov. (Lexical Synonymy of Hindi Language in light of the Writings of Indian Linguists). Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 2.102-106.

*Barxudarov, A.C. 1954. Slovoobrazovanie v sovremennom literaturnom xindi. (Word formation in Contemporary literary Hindi). Kratkie soobščenija instituta vostokovedenija.  Moscow . 34-48.

*-----, 1960. Sanskritskie elementy v sovremennom literaturnom xindi. (Sanskrit elements in contemporay literary Hindi). in Beskrovnyj. 1960a. 5-117.

*Beskrovnyj, V.M. (ed) 1960a. Xindi i Urdu, Voprosy leksikolgii  i slovoobrazonamie v xindi. (Hindi and Urdu. Problems in lexicology and word formation). Moscow .

*-------, 1960c. O sočetanijax glagol’nyx osnov xindi s RAHANA. (On combinations of Hindi verbal stems with rahnā,).  Istorija. i filologija.  81-103. Leningrad .

Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language, New York . Hold, Rinehart and Winston.

Bulaxovskij, L.A. 1953. Vvedenie v jazykoznanie (Introduction to Linguistics) Vol II. Moscow .

*Celysev, E.P. 1958. Sovremennaja obščestvenna-političeskaja terminologija literaturnogo xindi. (Contermporary socio-political terminology of literary Hindi). (Doctoral dissertation). Moscow .

*-----, 1958. K voprosu o nutjax formirovanija i razvitija leksiki v sovnemennom literaturnom xindi. (The problem of formation and development of Lexicon in Modern Literary Hindi). Učenye Zapiski Instituta Vostokovedenija. 13; 143-178.

Frank, P.G. 1958. Contemporary Science and the Contemporary World View, Daedalus : Beacon Press.

Gak, V.G. 1960. Nekotorye obščie semantičeskie osobennosti francuzskogo slova v sravnenii s russkom i voprosy leksikognafii. (Some General Semantic Peculiarities of French Words in Comparison with Russian and the Problems of Lexicography). Leksikografičeskij Sbornic.4.15-28.

Hockett, C.F. 1958. A Course in Modern  Linguistics. New York : Macmillan.

Hjelmslev, L. 1953. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Supplement to IJAL (vol. 19.1). Baltimore .

Istrina, E.S. 1951. L.V. Scerba kak leksikograf i leksikolog.

(L.V.. Shcherba as lexicographer and lexicologist). In Larin etc. 1951).

Katz, Jerold J. and A. Fodor .1963. The Structure of  a Semantic Theory. Language. 39. 170-210

Larin, B.A., L.R. Zinder and M.I. Matusevic (e.) 1951.Pamjati akademika L.B. Śč (In Honor  of Academic L.V. Shcherba) Leningrad .

Leont’ev, A.A. 1965. Slovo v recevoj dejatel’nosti. (Word in Speech Activities). Moscow .

Levkoskaja, K.A. 1956. Leksikologija nemeckogo jazyka. Lexicology of German Language). Moscow .

Mathews, M.M. 1955. The Freshman and His Dictionary. 10^th Reprint in Allen 1964. First appeared in College Composition and Communications. 6. 187-190.

Matusevic, M.I. (ed.) 1958). Izbrannye raboty po jazykoznaniju i fonetike Vol. I (Collected Works on Linguistics and Phonetics) Leningrad .

Mucnik, I.P. 1961. Vvedenie vjazykoznanie : Sbornik zadač i uprazneij. (Introduction to Linguistics: Collection of Problems and Exercises). Moscow .

* Nedzveckaja, K.M. 1954. Puti razvitija leksiki xindi. (Paths of Lexical Evolution of Hindi). Moscow.

Reformatskij, A.A. 1959, Vνedenie ν jarykoznanie 2^nd ed. (Introduction to Linguistics). Moscow.

----, 1968. Termin kakčlen leksičeskoj sistemy jazyka.  (Term as a member of Lexical System of Language). In Saumjan. 1968. 103-125.

Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.) 1963. Current Trends in Linguistics. Vol. I Soviet and East European Linguistics.  The Hague : Mouton.

------, (ed.) 1966. Current Trends in Linguistics. Vol. III. Theoretical Foundations. The Hague : Mouton.

Smirnickij, A.J. 1956. Leksikologija anglijskogo jazyka, (Lexicology of English Language). Moscow .

*Solnceva, N. I 1956. Ibščeskaja terminolgija ν soνremennon urdu.  (Socio-political Terminoogy in Contemporary Urdu). Doctoral Dissertation. Moscow .

Srivastava, R.N. 1968. Two Models of Language Learning. Studies in Hindi Linguistics. 152-173, New Delhi .

-----, 1969, Phonetics and Phonemics in Second Language Learning. In Varma 1969. 48-57.

Śaumjan, S.K. (ed) 1968. Problemy strukturnoj linguistiki 1967. (Problems of Structural Linguistics 1967.) Moscow

Ścerba, L.V. 1910. Kritičeskie zametki po poνdu knigi d-ra Frinty o češskom proiznošenii. (Critical Notes Apropos of Doctor Frint’s Book on the Czeck Pronunciation). Izvestija . . . Akademic Nauk. XV. 233-251.

------, 1931. O trojakom aspekte jazykoνyx javlenij i ob eksperimente ν jaxykoznanii. (On the Threefold Aspect of Language Phenomena and about Experiments in Linguistics). Izvestija AN SSR. 113-129.

-----, 1939. Preface to –Russko- Francuzkij slovar’. (Preface to Russian – French Dictionary). 2^nd ed. Moscow .

-----, 1940 Opyt obščej teorii leiksikografii (An Attempt Towards General  Theory of Lexicography). In Matusevic 1958. First published in Izvestija, AN SSR 1940. 89-117.

----, 1945. Ocerednye problemy jazykovedenija. (Recurrent Problems in Linguistics). In Matusevič (1958).  First published in Izvestija, AN SSR 1940. 89-117.

-----, 1962. O dal’še nedelimyx edinicax jazyka.  (On Further indivisible Units of Language). Voprozy Jazykoznanija. 2.

Trager, G.L. 1949. The Field of Linguistics. SIL Occasional Papers I. Okla :  Norman .

Varma, V. (ed.) 1969. Bhāsā-šiksana tathā bhāśā vijnāna, (Language Teaching and Linguistics). Agra . Kendriya Hindi Sansthana.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1962. Thought and Language. Ed. and trans. by E. Haufmann and G. Vakar. Cambridge , Mass. MIT Press.

Weinreich, Uriel. 1963. Lexicology. In Sebeok (1963). 60-93.

-----, 1966. Explorations in Semantic Theory. In Sebeok (1966). 395-477.

Wells, R.S. 1947. Imm diat Constituents. Language 23 : 81-117.

Whorf, B.L. 1956. Language, Thought and Reality. : Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. by J.B. Carroll. Cambridge . New York .

Xajdakov, S.M.  1961. Ocerkiopleksike lakskogo jazyka. (Essays on the Lexicon of Lak Language). Moscow .

*Zograf, G.A. 1960. Iranskie i arabskie elementy v urdu. (Iranian and Arabic Elements in Urdu). In Beskrovnyj (1960). 152-244.

Zvegincev, V.A. 1957. Semasiologiya. (Semasiology). Moscow .

[This paper is based on the material presented earlier to the Conference on Dictionary Making in Indian Languages held at the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore from 25 to 28 March, 1970 . RNS is responsible for sections 0 and 1, and RNS and RSG jointly for section 2 and the Bibliography.]

---

Top

An Anatomy Of A Dictionary  Entry With Samples Proposed For A Marathi-English Dictionary

Ashok R. Kelkar

            “A grain is enough to tell us whether the rice is well-cooked.”

-A Marathi proverb.

1. Lexicography has been regarded, until recently, at best as craft to be learned under a master or on one’s own, at worst as harmless drudgery and hackwork.  In India this till continues to be prevailing view.  Now another perspective has opened up-that of thinking of lexicography as the application of linguistic theory to the writing of a reference guide to the vocabulary of a language.  Some people even draw a distinction between lexicology-the relevant branch of linguistic theory-and lexicography-its application to dictionary-making. Practicing lexicographers may half resent this appearance of the linguist on the scene.  After all (they may well ask) what is the use of fancy theoretical constructs where a robust common sense àla Dr. Johnson and a sense of neatness and tidiness should be enough? They may, however, feel a bit reassured if the linguist could offer them help in making the dictionary even more neat and tidy and packing it with information that is even more varied and useful.

             It seems to me that the best starting point for a meaningful dialogue (a phrase that a good dictionary would promptly label as seminarese-handle with care!) between the professional or amateur lexicographer and the linguist-lexicologist is talking about the structure of a dictionary entry.

             The value of a dictionary depends on the answers to these three questions :

(a)           What are the types of queries that the dictionary proposes to answer ?

(b)           Does it supply information that is the best available to date and does it do so lucidly and relevantly ?

(c)           Does it help the reader to retrieve this information with the minimum trouble? How accessible does its arrangement make it ?

One would go a long way in answering the first and the last of our three questions by finding our whether an entry in the given dictionary has a well-defined structure at all and, if so, what that structure is like.

2.  Let us begin by spelling out what the structure of an entry in a traditional dictionary of an Indian language looks like :

(a)     entry word in the local script

*(b) transliteration in Roman or Devanagiri

*(c) origin tag – Sanskrit, Persian, English etc.

 (d) part of speech tag

*(e) subclass tag-e.g. gender of a noun, transitivity of a verb

(f)   string of glosses in the same language in a unilingual dictionary or in another language in a bilingual dictionary-*with some rudimentary punctuational structuring (commas versus semicolons, for example, or numbers such as (1), (2) etc.)

*(g) idioms and glosses of these idioms

*(h) citation from literary texts-chosen without any visible plan (such as covering all the centuries or all the meanings)

*(i) etymology

 (j) derivates

            Items marked above with an asterisk do not appear in all the dictionaries-in cheaper commercial dictionaries most or all of them would be missing.  The arrangement may, again, deviated somewhat from the above plan-e.g. item (c) precedes item (a) in Platts’s A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi and English. Also the glosses [under items (f) and (g)] may be in more than one language – e.g. Tamil lexicon gives a gloss in English as well as in Tamil and thus cuts across and distinction between unilingual and bilingual dictionaries.  The language in which information under items (c), (d), (e) and (i)  is supplied is usually in the same language as the glossing language under items (f) and (G). Thus Molesowrth’s A Dictionary of Marathi  and English gives such information in English. Finally, an entry may contain cross-references to other entries Indian dictionaries do not seem to use this highly versatile device on a large scale.

            An inspection of the above scheme suggests that there is room for improvement.  Perhaps what we should do is, first, to ask ourselves what is the maximum amount of information that we can pack in a dictionary without turning it into an encyclopedia . For any particular kind of dictionary this scheme may then be suitably adapted and pruned to suit the budgeting of square inches, number and size of entries, and costs and to meet the needs of the particular king or kinds of clients one has in mind.  (Instead of vaguely thinking of the User of the Dictionary, it is better to look upon him as a client with a particular background, equipment, preferences, and so forth who has come to the dictionary-maker for consultation).

            What I said earlier about separating dictionaries from encyclopaedias perhaps calls for some elucidation.  Let me quote H.W. and F.G. Fowler from their Preface to the first edition (1911) of The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English :

            “The book is designed as a dictionary, and not as an encyclopaedia; that is, the uses of words and phrases as such are its subject matter, and it is concerned with giving information about the things for which those words or phrases stand only so far as correct use of the words depends upon knowledge of the things. The degree of this dependence varies greatly with the kind of word treated....”

            The kind of questions raised by this last sentence can be illustrated as follows : Should an English entry on wife mention the prevailing assumption of monogamy? Should school teacher and secretary  be described as primarily feminine in gender in English ? Should lobster be defined as ‘large marine stalk-eyed ten-footed long-tailed edible crustacean with large claws formed by first pair of feet, bluish black before and scarlet after boiling, its flesh as food’ (as the Flowers do it in a dictionary addressed primarily to the native speaker) or as ‘shellfish with eight legs and two claws, bluish-black before and scarlet after being boiled..... its flesh as food’ along with a line drawing (as The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English originally conceived as a guide to Japanese Learners of English does it)? Should the user be told that Hindi koyala refers to ‘Eudynamis scolapaceus, L. and other songbirds of the same genus’ or that Hindi kapha is not only ‘thick fluid discharge from throat at the time of coughing’ but also ‘one of the three cardinal dośas) (see dośa) in the Ayurvedic system of medicine, comparable to phlegm in the Medieval European theory of humours and balgham in the Yunani system? Should an entry on a word meaning ‘owl’ in an Indian language mention that it is inauspicious to Hindus and is ‘proverbially’ afraid of daylight? It is obvious that a dictionary will have to talk encyclopaedically about the thing referred to and about their place in the culture that the language is a vehicle of, but it is equally clear that this encyclopaedic and ethnographic element must not squeeze out the properly linguistic information supplying which is the basic function of a dictionary.

            A dictionary whose dominant orientation is linguistic would not neglect common and heavy-duty words like as, the, set, go, hand in English by assuming that everyone knows all about them.  (It all depends on who ‘everyone’ is and what ‘knowing’ on his part is.) Such a dictionary, moreover, will not be stingy in allotting space to plenty of examples from everyday usage – not being satisfied with only a grudging  “literary” citation or two reserved for high prestige words like morn, consummation, incarnadine.  Above all a linguistic orientation will underline the importance of consistent principles in the choice and presentation of items.  Thus, if items from non standard dialects are to be included at all along with those from the standard variety, on would insist that a haphazard sprinkling of these forms with insufficient labelling will not net of word-gathering will be case evenly all over the area with the holes evenly wide! In the dictionary in its final shape a careful system of labelling will be introduced of the kind one gets in the critical apparatus of a carefully edited text.  Assuming that the language has three nonstandard varieties A,B,C besides the standard variety S, each item in all or some of its uses would carry one of the following labels – ABCS, ABS, ACS, BCS, ABC, AS, BS, CS, AB, AC, BC, A, B,C, S, (of course for economizing space the label that would appear most often could be left understood.)  If the careful and extensive verification which this system must involve is not feasible for some reason, the linguist would stick to that variety or those varieties of the language which he knows most about.  The test of relevancy for deciding inclusion or exclusion of information should be uniform for all entries in a dictionary.

            While a dictionary is not a thesaurus or word-finder, it can take on some of the functions of a word-finder.  Theoretically the dictionary and the word-finder are at poles apart.  Once a form is identified, the dictionary supplies all sorts of information which includes the attribution of some recurring properties.  The point of entry in a word-finder is, on the other hand, just such a property and items sharing this property are listed-say, exclamations of grief, verbs taking two objects synonyms of nadi ‘river’ in Sanskrit, words in English  relating to ‘horse’ (mare, colt, filly, stallion, pony, neigh, pack, mane etc.), words rhyming with sigh, words accented on the final syllable in a language with predominant penultimate accent, and so forth.  How to arrange these entries in a word-finder is a vexed problem.  It may be noted in passing that the nighantus košas, dhātupāthas and ganapāthas of ancient India were not dictionaries but thesauruses or word-finders of certain well defined types, and that the thesaurus counterpart of an etymological dictionary is the historical and comparative word-finder (Walde and Pokorny’s Indo-European and Burrow and Emeneau’s Dravidian dictionaries, for example). Now, in a dictionary proper as distinct from a word-finder, it is often helpful to undertake some word-listing.  A dictionary should do this, however, only so far as this promotes its primary function of explaining the uses of forms.  Thus, instead of glossing colonel as ‘next lower than a brigadier-general and next higher than a lieutenant-colonel’, lieutenant colonel as ‘next lower than a colonel and next higher than a major’, etc. etc., it would make good sense to bring all those terms together in a single convenient place (say, in the entry an officer) and send the user there through cross-references from colonel, major etc. The common practice of huddling derivatives and compounds as subentries under the main word (carried to its logical extreme in Monier-William’s Sanskrit-English dictionary) at the cost of some inconvenience or even bewilderment to the user has no other justification than its convenience for word-finding.

                With these preliminary remarks, we are now ready to unpack an entry of the thoroughly unabridged dictionary.

3. If one thinks of a dictionary entry as an involved but abbreviated sentence, the entry-heading (or lemma or identification or storage address) constitutes it s subject as it were and the body of the entry (or explanation of use or information stored) its predicate.  Any matter entraneous to these two will be in the nature of supplementary information : this may be stacked away in the end in the form of sub-entries (typically, for idioms) or interpersed elsewhere (typically as cross-references).

            The entry-heading will consist of  : (1) spellings of various sorts,  (2) identification tags, if any, when the spellings are not distinctive.  These and the alphabetical arrangement is all the help the user gets in order to figure out for himself the correct address for the information he is looking for.

(1)     The item-be it word or compound or derivative or idiom or abbreviation or suffix or whatever-whose use is going to be explained is first spelled out at any or all of the following levels (with or without a listing of variants) :

(la) conventional spelling

(lb) phonological spelling

(lc) grammatical resolution into constituents, if any (wisdom into wise and –dom, took into past of take).

All this may be given a historical or temporal dimension by tracing these three backwards in time- this amounts to a formal history or etymology of the word.

(2)     When there is homonymy of any sort (homography or homophony or both-including grammatical homonymy), this is usually indicated by splitting the entry into separate successive entries often numbered serially-

¹date n. (fruit), ²date I n. (of a month), IIv. When there is polysemy of any sort                 (as with ²date II, with documents and with girls or boys as objects), the usual procedure is to subdivide the entry into parts often serialized in same way and often with labels like figurative—

²date I n. 1.....la......;.......2.....

            In a dictionary handling linguistically heterogenous items, additional diachronic tags (Old, Middle, 17^th c.), diatopic tags (standard, Northern, Brahman use), or diatypic tags (elegant, literary, technical) may have to be added.  The consistent use of a diachronic perspective throughout the body of the entry makes the dictionary a historical one.

            The body of the entry is an elucidation of the functions or uses of the item heading the entry.  It will consist of : [3] the use of conditioned formal variants (a before consonants, an before vowels] and the conditioning of formal variants in accompanying itmes [shake takes –en and not –ed as the past participle ending], [4] the grammatical function class and sub-class, and [5] the explanation of meaning which, of course, is the problematic soft core of the entry and the locus of the distinction between unilingual and multilingual dictionaries.  This is what the user primarily comes to the dictionary for as opposed to (1) and (2) constituting the storage address.

(3)     Allomorphy of the item in question or of its accompaniments does not call for further comment beyond saying that this information is often woven into (1) (by spelling buttar phonetically as ‘bAt*’ where the asterisk stands for the potentially of the linking r) or into (4) (by tagging a verb as verb irregular or verb of conjugation IV).

(4)     Most dictionaries now provide at least a broad function-class tag (noun masculine, noun plural, verb transitive, pronoun relative). The linguistically more sophisticated ones will venture further (noun countable, verb transitive VP8 in The Advanced learner’s dictionary of current English ultimately inspired by PALMER’S A Grammar of English words).  Another format for supplying such information is providing carefully chooser examples (we supply books to the library and we supply the library with books under supply).  This is especially needed on bilingual dictionaries where we certainly cannot assume that everyone knows all about this.  It is obvious that such ventures have to be backed by a sound linguistic analysis and an intimate knowledge of the language.

(5)     Three main types of format have come into vogue over the centuries in the explanation of meaning :

[a] the definition or, more precisely, the definiens or the predicate of a definition [cat 'billī' ; to run'  'to progress by advancing each foot alternately never having both feet on the ground  at one and the same time [compare to walk]'; Urdu ḵẖ̱itab 'honorific title')

[b] the description of usage, which is distinct from [a], though not always typographically distinguished from it [Hindi koyala kind of bird; Urdu šaikh honorific title English rummy name of card game; Marathi vanscⁿ used for calling or mentioning respectfully one's husband's sister; Marathi vāraneⁿ euphemism for maraneⁿ]

(c) the well-chosen example-the kind we expect from an examinee when asked to use an expression in a sentence of his own-or the well-chosen picture or diagram-as in defining different kinds of knots or shades of colour [illustrations of both kinds provide a realistic sample context in which the item being glossed could properly be used]

Of course the three modes of bringing home to the user the use of words and phrases could be reduced to a single formula-in the last analysis [a] being a special case of [c] and [c] being a special case of [b].  In any case they have to be often combined [the definition of run given above needs some descriptive support like – as used with a human subject; have can hardly be defined in Hindi without an example; in glossing Hinde pīnā in English as ' smoke [hookahs, cigarettes, cigars]' we ari in fact providing examples in an abbreviated manner; in describing a catapult as a Y-shaped stick we are presenting a miniature picture or diagram; etc.

                The supplementary information may include thesaurus-type lists of the following among others :  idioms; synonyms, near-synonyms, and antonyms; correlated words [as in the example of ranks  to be listed under officer discussed above].

4. This inward logical structure of the entry is made manifest to the user of the dictionary in various ways :

[a] by a careful step-by-step explanation in the introduction to the Dictionary of the different parts of the entry, or what is and is not included in each part, and of the format of each part [with appropriate examples extracted from the body of the Dictionary].

            [b] By punctuational and other symbols; typography; and the lay-out of the entry.

            Considering how important the contribution is that is made by typographical devices both to the articulation of the entry and to the saving of space in order to make room for more information and to keep the costs down, perhaps the publishers would do well to try out different typographical formats in a sample fascicule and elicit comments from typical prospective users before deciding upon the final physical shape of the dictionary.

            Of course there is more to a dictionary than the structure of its entries and the typographical format-there are the selection and arrangement of the entries themselves and of the subdivisions with a single entry, the microstructure of the explanation of use in unilingual and multilingual dictionaries, the balance between the encyclopaedic and the thesaurus elements of the dictionary on the one hand and its main linguistic core on the other, the distinction between synchronic and diachronic perspectives, and so on.  But a clear grasp of the structure of an entry should provide an effective point of departure for the consideration of other problems.

5. A selection of words as used in contemporary Marathi-namely aṅ̇ga/āṅ̇ga, antarasāla, ¹kavadạ̣̄  ²kavadạ̣̄, gosta, dahī, ¹bhāṅga, ²bhāṅga, ¹māraṇeⁿ, ²māraṇeⁿ, ¹veḷa, ²vela and šabda (all substantives with the exception of ¹, ²māraṇen verb transitive and intransitive) -  is taken up here for a descriptive treatment, i.e., neither historical nor rigorously analytic.  This is not intended as a representative group; there is sufficient variety nevertheless so as to illustrate the handling of a wide variety of problems the present themselves to a practising lexicographer.

An explanation of the typographical and other conventions will be useful both for understanding these entries and for its own sake.

            The entry heading consists of the conventional spelling in the Devanagari script, the phonemic spelling in modified Roman, and, whenever the word (or stem) happens to be complex, an indication of the constituent elements in brace rackets {      }.  The inclusion of any item here and elsewhere in brace brackets suggests a cross-reference to the reader.

            When two or more entry headings have the same conventional spelling, numbers are prefixed to the heading – this is also useful in giving cross-references-thus, "see ²mārṇƏ" sends the reader to the verb intransitive or "see ²vel" to the noun : masculine.

            Each entry consists of one or more paragraphs.  Observations in the opening paragraph are valid for the others (if any) unless the contrary is indicated. The paragraphs other than the opening one (when there are more than one paragraph in the whole entry) will carry alphanumeric labels like 1, la, lal, la2, lb, 2, etc. Observations in any labelled paragraph are valid, unless the contrary is indicated, for subsequent paragraphs if these carry labels that extensions of the earlier label : thus I governs la, la2, 1b, but not 2; 1a governs lal, la2, but not 1b, 2; and so forth.

            The body of the entry begins with a broad function-class label like :

Fa noun feminine of the '-a' declension

fi noun feminine of the '-i' declension

M noun masculine

N noun neuter

VI verb intransitive

VT verb transitive

followed, where necessary, by an indication of paradigmatic peculiarities in ().

            The explanation of meaning is potentially divided into three parts – the second of which is enclosed in angle brackets <>.  When the second part can be dispensed with, the <> stand empty.  These three parts are respectively –

(a)     a description of usage-including indication of typical collocations and cross-references introduced by cf., syn., opp. etc. to related items;

(b)     a gloss formally identifying the referents (e.g. with biological taxonyms) and informally suggesting a semantic analysis- any additional explanations, often of an encyclopaedic nature being set off with a dash but still within <>;

(c)     one or more translation equivalents that would be acceptable in contemporary English.

Obviously (b) and (c)  purposes; (B) will be more useful to the English-knowing reader who wants to find out what exactly the Marathi entry heading means or refers to; (C) merely tells the reader what an English speaker will say in a parallel situation and thus will be more useful to someone using the dictionary for learning English better.

The explanation of meaning is not really complete without the examples that follow exhibiting the entry heading in a variety  of contexts and collocations.

Some entries will have one or more of the following three additional paragraphs – marked with one, two, three asterisks respectively and numbered consecutively with the preceding :

    *    idioms beginning with the entry heading

  **    all other idioms

***    listing of words of related meaning and use with some explanation.

In these three-especially the last-the dictionary  is taking on the functions of the thesaurus or word-finder.  The subdivisions in these three are punctuated with parallel marks .

The whole entry is interpersed with additional explanations in ( ) which are applicable to the immediately preceding item unless the contrary is stated. Thus if three translation equivalents are presented thus :

x,y (Brit.),). z(US)

this means-y is British, z is US-American, and x is without any limitation.

            A number of conventions are used for saving space :

x/yz means xz, yz; as in : to it^hə ahe/hota

x[y]z means xz, xyz; as in : semi vowel

ditto means the same explanation of meaning as the preceding item.

The entry heading is abbreviated thus : the degree mark ^o is used when the whole of it or a fragment thereof stands attached to the rest and the curly dash ~ is used when the whole of it stands detached.  In the case of verb entries -ṇƏ is deleted in interpreting o-thus ^o un, ^oto under marnə stand for marun, marto.  Other such shortenings with variable values are :

@ any of the endigns –a, i, -ə;-e, -ya, -i; -o, -e depending on the gender, number (and person) agreement.

A,B,C any suitable nominal expression referring to a person (including personal pronouns) in the appropriate case.

X,Y,Z, any suitable nominal expression referring to a nonperson, usually inanimate, in the appropriate case.

P, Q, R any suitable clause with a finite verb

V any suitable verb stem or any suitable phrase closing with a verb stem.

N any suitable cardinal numeral.

HIM, HIS, ONEself may be replaced by any suitable expression (her, my, etc.) depending on the context.

            Italicizing any word abbreviation draws the reader's attention tot he introductory pages of the dictionary where an explanation of its precise use would be offered. A list of the abbreviations and specially used words appearing in the sample entries (in addition to the function-class labels listed earlier) follows :

also : in addition tot he literal meaning

animal name

Arabic

as: introducing typical contexts

Brit : British usage

causal

cf. compare the following related but non-synonymous item(s)

collocation(s) textual context only (cf. context)

colloq. colloquial

comp. comparable to

contemptuous

context textual as well as situational context (cf. collocations(s))

countable

Customary (among speakers of Marathi unless the contrary is stated)

ditto (already explained)

EI English equivalent acceptable to the native speakers in an Indian context ('local' colour) (not Indian English)

eleg. elegant

esp, esp., especially

etc., etc. etcetera, and the like (as in x/y etc.)

euph. euphemistic

fig. figurative [metaphorical or metonymic extension]

French

H. Hindi

head: (adjective or adverb) when used with the following as head

hist. used in talking about historical matters ('period' colour)

iron. ironical

joc.  jocular use

Latin

lit. literary (not : literal)

loose in loose usage

med. medicinally in India

negating implying or expressing negation (of context)

negative with explicity negative expression (of collocation)

not used as a warning to the reader –what follows is not recommended

obj : with the following as typical objects(s)

obsolescent nearly obsolete (totally obsolete items or usages have no place in a description of contemporary Marathi)

often weaker than usu

opp. opposite

opposed

o/v : as object to the following verb(s)

Pers. Persian

pl. plural; in pl. used with the appropriate plural form

plant name

pop. popular, non-technical

prov. proverbial

resp., resp. respectively

Skt. Sanskrit

sg. singular

slang.

specif. specifically, specified

subj: with the following as typical subject(s)

sv: as subject to the following verb(s)

syn: synonymous in this use with the following

tech: technical (cf. pop.)

oken

type

ypically

unprintable

untranslated not translated directly

Urdu

US US – American usage

usu. usually [cf. often]

6. Thirteen sample entries now follow :

+ÆMÉ / +ÆÉMÉ 'eŋg[ə̌̌]/' 'aŋgə̌̌/' aŋg/^o ŋŋ [only ^oŋg before [semi vowel]

N cf. šərir, dehə̌, kaya, kudi, dhəd, əŋgakhandya, sərvaŋgə̌

1.    ang/^o ŋŋpreferrd; with ²-c@ body of a human being, esp. trunk as opposed to head and limbs> body [in many collocation, untranslated]. Acə~ləvčik ahe A has  a lithe body; A is lithe Acə~dukht taplə/gərəm zhalə/gar pədlə/tathlə/ {zed} zhalə ahe A is aching/sore all over, A has got a temperature, ditto, A feels cold to the touch, A body has turned rigid, A is stiff all over, Acə ~ dhərlə [{dhərņə}] A became stiff all over.  Acə~amblə [{ambņə}]. ~ {murədņə}. Acə~modun alə A started feeling/began to feel feverish. X ^ogavər kaņdhņə [X: tap, dukhnə etc.] to put up  with the X (without having it treated). ~ modun/zhadun /rakhun kam karnə to work hard, to break ONE's back in working /ditto/ to spare oneself in working, not to strain oneself.  Ačə~lulə pədlə (A suffered from waxy flexibility/cerea flexibilitas). Ača ^ogac@ akda/khurda/pani zhal@ A was doubled up in pain/A found himself hardly in one piece [after a tiring journey, etc.] /A was bathed in sweat. Ača ^ogavərun {var} gelə. Ača ^ogaci {ag} zhali. ^ogači cəvghədi/zudi kərnə to fold ONE self up [as: in acrobatics], to curl ONESelf up [as: with cold]. X Ačə ^ogala yet@ / bəst@hot@, X Ačə ^ogabərobər/^ogc@  ahe [X : garment} X fits A [snugly], X is [of] the right size for A. X Ačas ^ogilagl@A [X : food, a change of air, etc./job, action, etc.] X suited A, X benefited A's health, X benefited A, X was good for him, X did A some good. A X ^ogi lavun ghet nahi  A fails to show the benefit of X. ^ogapeksa boŋga žastə. Anə Bsathi aplya ^ogăci savli keli a put himself between the sun and B, [fig.] A devoted HIS life to protecting/sheltering B. Ača ^ogat X bhinlə[X : poison etc.] X spread throughout A's body.

la < body of human being as it presents itself to others, esp. trunk as opposed to head and limbs >  person (in many collocations untranslated); skin. dhənə/ taknəto fill out, to put on flesh/to become thinner, to lose flesh, Ala~alə ahe, a ^ogane bhərl@ ahe, Acə~sutləahe A has filled out, A has put on flesh, Ača^oga {vər} dhavun zanə. Acă^ogavər hətyare/kəpde hot@ A had weapons/clother on HIM, A had weapons/clothes on HIS person ~dhunə (sub: female cf. aŋghol) to take bath. Acə səglə/ərdhə ~ bhazlə A was burned all over/over half of  HIS body . ^ogca/^ogaca məl (skin dirt) dirt.  Aaplya ^og[a]ca məl denar nahi also (cf. čikku) A is stingy. Acə~colnə to rub A all over, to give A a rubbing/scrubbling. Ača^ogala X colnə /lavnə (X : oil, soap etc.) to rub/apply X all over A, to rub A with X. ^ogavərce kes body hair. Acə~khaztə ahe A feels itchy. Acə~phutlə his skin got chapped/cracked (the latter more serious). Acə~phullə ahe A has a rash all over (as: in an eruptive fever). Ača^ogavər dag/phod {kata}/etc. uthl@ A got spots/boils/goose-pimple(s) [on HIS skin]. ^ogac {sal} nighalə the skin peeled off mažha ^ogala hat lavunəko /nəka don't (you dare) touch me! (don't use force, of. {kes} ala hat lavnə). Ača^ogala gham phutla A was in sweat all over, A was in cold sweat (in fear). { ^ocəti} x/la zanə. A ^oganə barik/zad/etc. ahe, Ačə~barik/zad/etc. ahe (cf. {^okathi} A is thin/stout/etc.

1b euph., esp. in some set collocations

1b1<breast(s) of a woman> ^ogavər {pədər} ghenə ^ogavər pinə to suck, to feed at the breast. ^ogavər paznə to give suck to, to feed at the breast, to nurse. ^ogavərc@ todnə to wean. Ačə ^ogavər mul ahe A is a nursing mother. ^ogavərcə {dudhla}.

1b2 syn :  šərir, dehə̌ <uter-vaginal canal> Ača ^ogavər (un/cə) zatə ahe (vaginal discharge-menstrual, morbid, during pregnancy, or at the onset of or after labour, cf. vǐţaļ, dupņi there is a show (menstrual or at the onset of labour), A is having a bleeding (esp. nonmenstrual), ~ baheralə (prolapsus uteri there was a falling off of the womb.

Ib3 syn : sə̌̌rir, dehə̌<rectum> Acə ~ baheralə (cf. həgeru) (prolapsus ani) A had a prolapse of the rectum. lc<self, selfhood, person, esp. seat of [legal] responsibility>. ONEself. X ^ogavər ghenə (X : kam, etc.) to take X upon ONE-self, to assume responsibility for [doing] X. X Ača ^ogavər pədl@cədhl@ (X:job, merchandise, etc.) A was stuck with X/X Ača ^ogavər / ^ogašial@/šekl@(X: decision, trick, deal, etc., verbs in ascending order of seriousness) X  landed A into trouble/brought A to grief, X backfired on A (contrary to A's intent). ^ogabaher/^ogavegļ@ kərņə/ ţakņə to wash ONE's hand of, to get out of; to refuse[to accept], to back out of. Ača^ogala dhəs lagli A sustained a personal loss. ^ogavər ghər bandhlə built a house on HIS own. ^ogca dhəni ( self-employed or with a private income) ONE's own master. ^ogc@ lihnar (author of a will, poem etc. in autograph). Ala ^ogavər pəyse dile lent money to A without any security (as : wages before the hob is done). {^oudhar}.

2. ^ogc@ by the side of ^ogca@. <nature of a person esp. innate nature> nature, character. ^ogči kəla innate skill. A ^ogc@ kəlavənt/kəlpək/dust/etc. ahe(sny: {had} ac@ A is an artist imaginative/malicious/etc/ by nature. Ača ^ogi/ ^ogat X bhərl~/khill@ ahe (X: fault) A is X-ridden, A is riddled with X. Ača ^ogi/ ^ogat X ahe (X: good/bad quality) A is X (adj.), A has X (sb.) [in HIM], there is X in A.

2a ^ogc@ which is an integral part, etc.). ^ogcə {kulup} (built-in lock). ^ogca zhəra syn: { živəntə} zhəra (not seasonal). ^ogcə kəpat (cupboard built into the wall). ^ogca danda (handle carved integrally, not attached)

2b <marked ability in a particular sphere of activity> aptitude, talent, flair. Ala Xcə ahe/anahi A has a/no talent for X. Xat~dakhəvnə to show a skill/an aptitude for X.

3. ' əŋg [ə̌̌]/^o /ă ^o/ 'əŋŋ preferred,

eleg., lit. < constituent of a whole> part, portion, brach. {eəturəngə̌} sena. čar ^ogə ( in chess, the four classes of pieces- pawns, horses, camels, elephants, resp. pawns. knights, bishops, rocks-other than the king and the vizier-i.e. queen). prədhan/ gəvn ~ principal/subsidiary part element. ticəŋg {ən} – {əŋgə̌-prəttyəŋgə̌} bhizlə(every part of her person was wet) she was wet all over.

3a cf. bazu <(part facing) a specific direction> side. X ča pudhča ^ogala at the front/in front of X. Xča čari/səglya ^ogala on all sides of / all around X. uzvya ^oganə (also : fig.) towards A (as of : sympathy, etc.). davya ^ogavər zhopl@ lay/slept on HIS left side. Ača davya ^ogala zhopl@ lay/slept to the left of A,on A's left. Ala eka ^ogala ghene to make A aside/to one side.

3b syn:upaŋgə̌̌  <subsidiary part of appendage> {vedaŋgě}. vivahat hom ha mukkhyə̌̌, itər kevəl ^ogə {hom} is the main thing in a wedding, the rest are frills (colloq.)/ subsidiary.

3c<> aspect, side. {səŋgi:t} ači ^ogə (aspects fo music-{ləy}, {svər}, etc.).

4 cf. ləksə̌̌ <participation, responsible involvement, esp. not widely known> hand, Ačə xmədhe~hotə/nəvhtə A had a/no hand in X, a was/wasn't (a) party to X. Anə Xmədhe ~ ghatl. A took part in X. Anə Xmədhun ~ kadhlə A withdrew from Xə~ləpəvnə to disclaim/conceal ONE's part.

4a <advantageous acquaintance with person in authority> contact(s), influence connections. Aəsərkarat/dərbarat~ahe A has contacts in the Government/Court.

*5~ghasnə to sustain personal loss (for the sake of X/A). || ~ ghenə  1 syn : {~la} 2. syn : {~4} ghalnə  || ~ corn 1 to duck (from a blow), to shrink (from a collision), to make oneself look small (out of shame etc.). ~ corun zanə to squeeze (oneself) (through an opening), 2 cf. {^ocor} to shirk (from doing ONE's best). ||  ~ zhaknə 1 {~la} to cover ONEself [up] (just enough for modesty), to throw something on (as: a woman rearranging her clothing for modesty).2 syn:{~4} ləpəvnə || ~zəhadnə 1 (sub: dog, etc.) to shake ONEself. 3 to deny ONE's involvement/ guilt. || ~ taknə 1 tolose flesh. 2 to throw ONEself down (as: chid in tantrum). 3 (syn. pədnə) to lie down, stretch out (as : for a brief rest). || ~ dakhəvnə 1 to show talent/ promise. 2 (usu. in negative collocations to show ONE's hand (Brit.), to tip ONE's hand (US) in some activity). || ~modnə1 see {~1}. 2 syn: {~r} conrə || ~ rakhnə 1 see {~ 1}

2 syn: {~5}  cornə. 3 to take care of ONEself, ONE's own interests || ~savərnə 1 to walk steadily (as: with a toddler). 2 to put on flesh again (as: in convalescence). ~ savrun bəsnə (to sit compactly, opp, to sit sprawling). || ^ogakhali pədnə 1 syn: {^ovəlni} pədnə 2 (subj: woman) Ača ^ogakhali pədnə to let A make love to ONEself. || ^ogakhali ghalne (subj: male) to take as a mistress.

**6 X Ača ^ogaši/^ogavər al@ 1 (X : heavy food) X made A drowsy. 2(X : action) see {~/c}.|| B Ača ^oga {vər} [dhavun] ala/gela B rushed at A. || Ača ^ogat {vat}/varəsirl@. ||Aca ^ogavərun {varə] gelə. || Ača ^ogat [varə] alə/širlə/senčnrlə ahe A is possessed. A is acting as if possessed. Ača ^ogat X alə/ širlə/ senčnrlə ahe (X: name of spirit, fig. desire etc.) A is possessed by X. ^ogači savli kərne ({ ~1}). || ^ogaca {tilpapəd} zhala.

†ÓŸÖ¸ü ÃÖÖ»Ö 'əntər-sal/'ă^o{ əntər, sal} Fi tech.

1 <cortex, inner layer of the bark, typically, the med. prized part of the plant> inner bark,

2 syn: {əantəstvəča} <dermis>

ú¾Ö›üÖ 'kəvda^F {'kəvdi, -a} Mlanimal name, cf. kəbutər, any other various smaller species of family Columbidae, all fruit-eating wild birds, small game, specif.-

1 Urdu cittā fāxtā<Streptopelia chinensis (Gmel.) Scopoli= Turtur surantesia, Gmel.; of ill omen for Hindus if it enters a house> Indian spotted/speckled dove.

2 Urdu dhaur fāxtā <S.decaocto, Frivaldszky, proper; larger, lighter-coloured> Indian ringdove.

3.<S. risoria, L.=T. risorius, L; buff-coloured, of SE Europe and Asia > [common] ringdove.

4. lal ~syn: hola.

4a Urdu īnt fāxtā <S. senegalensis, L., cambayensis, Gmel.=T cambayensis. Gmel.; smaller, brown>  Indian brown dove.

4b Urdu totrā fāxtā <Oenopopelia tranquebarica, Hermann; brown-red trainable> red turtledove.

ú¾Ö›üÖ kəvda {kəvi-da}M joc., contemptuous <> poetaster. ÖÖê™ü gost [ə̌̌] Fi.

1 cf. kətha, kəhani, həkigət, kissa, 'akkhyayika, dentə-kətha, o/v:sagŋnə<account of an incident, either fictitious orfiction-like in interest, whether told informally (as: in entertaining children) or composed as a piece of folk or artistic literature> story, tale (lit. and in some set collocations).~ ithe səmpət nahi, ankhi pudhe ahe the story does not end here; there is more [of it]. urleli ~ duya saŋgen I^o tell you the rest of the story tomorrow. aži, məla ~ saŋg tell me a stroy, grandma. šivažiča ^oti the stores about Shivaji  ramači ~ the story of Rama. mothya lokanča čhotya ^oti little-known stories about well-known people.~ rəcnə to make up a story (fictitious). ^otitl! mulga/manzər the boy/cat in the story.

la syn. tech: kəthanək <account of what happens in a fictional piece of literature, a stage play, etc.> story, plot məla tya kadəmbəriči/sinemači~saŋg tell me the story/plot of the novel/film, tell me what happens in the novel/film.

2a cf. bhag, prəsəŋgə̌̌, mahiti, s/v : honə, ghədnə, mahit əsnə, oləkhnə, etc., o/v : kərnə, saŋgnəetc., often omissible <the incident, the action, the fact in question, what has been told, etc.> thing, matter (both more often replaced by : it, that etc.). hou/ ghədnu  nəye ti~/te zhal@/ghədl@ the thing that/what should not have happened has happened. mi sangitleli ~/ sangitlelə tu kel@s ka? did you do the job that what I told you to ? ! ghədli təši/zəsə ghədlə təsə sagŋ/tell me the incident the way it happened. hi~he mi tadl@ hot@ I guessed as much amča azobanča velči~let me tell you something from our grandfather's time. ~ nighali mhənun saŋgto since the matter has come up, let me tell you the whole story. šri:mətanči~nirali ahe as for the rich, that is a different matter/story. ži~A/Xči tic [~] B/Yči what is true of A/X is also true of B/Y to lac gheto hi~/he mi dolyanni pahil@ahe he accepts bribes. I have seen that with my own eyes. vad-vədlam-pasun calət alelya ^oti the practices handed down from our forefathers. hi məla nə pətnari~ahe this is something I cannot accept.

2b colloq., syn: vəstu 2.

2c colloq., syn: čiz 2.

3a <reference, mention> X/Ači~kadhnə/kərnə to make a reference to X/A, to bring up the subject of X/A, to bring up the subject of X/A.

3b ^oti pl. syn : gəppa ({gəppə̌̌}),gəppa-^oti kərnə to chat. (moth- mothya) ^oti  kərnə to saŋgnə to talk big (US). Ala ^oti šikəvnə also often iron. (to tender advice to A patronizingly without being in the position to do so). ¤üÆüß/¾Æüà 'dəhi' N (pl. ^ohyə, obl. ^ohya), usu. in sg, syn: dədhi (lit.), Skt. dadhi, H. dahi; cf. dudh ***5, {virəznə}, pənčě-gevvə̌̌;o/v, s/v, {virəznə}.

1 <milk food, of custard-like consistency and (sub) acid taste, produced by curdling warm milk using a lactic acid starter with cultures of Lactobacillus spp. and Streptococcus spp. typically L. bulgaricus in S. India and S. thermophilus in N. India-also used med. and as base for producing loni 1, tak, tup, čəkka; comp. yog (hurt)>dahi (EI), curd(s) (EI, otherwise a wider term). sayicə ~ creamy dahi (comp. sour cream). ^onyatle pani whey (actually a wider term). ^ohyala pani sutlə a lot of whey separated from ~ (sign of poorly made/ preserved~). ^ohyatl@ (head: košimbir, etc. (salads, sauces with ~added). ^ohyači kəvdi/modl@ (lost the consistency and got scrambled). ^ohyači kəvdi ghal can I have some ~ ? ~ phəsphəsllə/čitavlə/bollə see phəsphəs. etc. Ača hatavər ~ ghalnə (to offer a little dahi to A-customary where A is parting a member of the family or a parting guest who one hopes will return).

*2 ~ khau ki {məhi} khau  əsə Ala zhalə A could not make up his mind as to which of two things to do; A wanted to have the cake and eat it too.

⁹³ÖÖÓÖ bhaŋg M o/v : kadhnə, padnə <parting of the hair frowned upon in males among orthodox Hindus> (davikəde/mədhe)~ padnə/kadhnə to part the hair (in the left/middle.). ~phatla (the parting became more prominent because of loss of hair along the line).

²³ÖÖÓÖ 'bhaŋg Fa plant name.  

1.       cf, tag, əmbadi; Skt. bha´gā, vijayā, H. bhānga, gāµjā Persian bang, Arabic hašiš <Cannabis sativa, L. = c. indica, L; tall, erect, annual, dioecious herb-cultivated, used med., source of fibre for canvas, tarpaulin; gum; narcotic and intoxicant substances> (Indian) hemp, bhang, cannabis.

2.       o/v: ghenə (consume), ghotnə ) prepare), cədhəvnə (make stronger). <pounded green or dried shoots, leaves, flowering tops of ~ 1-chewed, drunk, or smoked for narcotic or intoxicant effects, sacred to Shiva> bhang, hemp, cannabis, hashis. ^oeči goli (ball made of chewing ). Ala ~ cedhli A got intoxicated with bhang.

2a syn : ghota, thədai, o/v : pinə (drink) <infusion with milk from ~ 2, mildly intoxicant, coolant>

*3 ^· get tuləs (said of a {satvik} person in morally unpromising environment). ***4{~2, 2a} should be distinguished from the following-in roughly ascending order of strength : ganža (dried pistillate flowering tops, with resinous content, smoked) marijuana, cannabis || kusumba (infusion of green tops with pepper etc. for drinking) || čərəs (dried resin separated from young pistillate shoots and flowering tops, smoked for strong narcotic effect) || həšiš (dried leaves or seed husks).

´ÖÖ¸üÖê / ¾Öê marnə { marnə, causal} VT.

1. cf. mərnə ; marək (adjective).

la often distinguished from {~2a} as : thar/živaniši ~ , ^orun, taknə <>to kill, slay (lit.); murder. Anə gaila ^olə/gay marli (A: human, animal; cf. {-2a} A killed/the cow. ramanə ravnala  ^olə Rama slew Ravana. šətruce ~ pacše lok ^ole 500 of the enemy were killed. dhekun ^oaycə əvsədh (medicine for killing bedbug) bedbug killer. ^ou kinvva məru əsa mirdhar the resolve either to kill or be killed/to ďo or die. Ala bəndukinə to shoot A  (down) with a gun).

1b obj : strong smell, taste, pain, feeling. etc. <to eliminate or diminish> to suppress/deaden/kill. bhuk/təhan ~ to suppress pangs of hunger/thirst; (to let hunger/thirst remain unsatisfied till it is forgotten) to get past eating/ drinking.

1c cf. katnə {aut} kərnəl obj: player or piece in certain games <to overcome and render ineffective in the play> to take/capture (chess piece). to trump (card), to knock/get out (player of opposite team in khokho, etc.). Anə Bc @ pyadə/ekka ^ol@ A took B's pawn/trumped B's ace.

2 cf. thoknə, hannə; mar, mara (both nouns).

2a cf. kan dnə, kutnə, čecnə, thecnə, pitnə, bədəvnə, sədəknə; obj. (always marked with –la): person, animal <to exert physical violence, esp. by hitting, upon> to strike, beat, hit thrash (intensely). Anə Bla phar ^olə A beat B soundly, A gave A a good thrashing. Ala Xvər ~ (X: body part) to hit A on the X. hatanə ~ to strike (with ONE's fist), to spank (with the flat of one's hand). lathenə~to kick. kathinə/čhədinə dəgdanə ~ to strike/hit with a stick/cane/stone (either by throwing or striking) An gaila ^olə (cf. {~la} A hit/beat the cow. Acə dokə ~(hist.) to behead, execute. ^oun pith/bhus kərnə to beat unmercifully/into a jelly/to a pulp.

2a1 fig., obj : person <to make ineffectual> to cripple, strike.(down). Ala p ysan ^o1 killed A with money. Ala vygan ^o1 the physical handicap struck him (down).

2b obj. never with  -la.

2b1 cf. ləgavnə, bhədkavnə obj: blow; weapon, missile < to cause (blow) or to use (weapon, missile) with violence – upon person, object> to strike, hit, wield. Anə Bča dokyat/Bla thəppəd /kathi ^·li A gave B a blow/slap [on the head[, A hit B (on the head) with a stick, A dealt a blow to B (on the head). Ane Bča thobadit/šri:mukhat ^·li({thobad}). Ala čhədya ~ to hit/fetch/catch A blows with a cane. Ala dəgəd ~ (cf. {~ 2a}) to throw a stone at A (may be a hit or a miss). Xla cabuk ~ to hit X with a whip, to use the whip on X. bənduk ^oayla/calvayla šikl@ learned to use a gun (cf. Avər benduk/goli zhadnə/caləvnə to fire (a gun/a bullet) on A). təlvar ~ (hist.), dhar ~ (obsolescent) to wield a sword, (fig.) to wield the sword mightily, to do mighty deeds; (fig.) to perform great exploits.

2b2 cf. thoknə, hannə, obj-solid object hit or thrown, liquid in jet or spray <to send with great force> lakdat khidat khila/ pacər ~ to drive a nail/wedge into wood. əvsədh ~ to spray insecticide/etc.

2b2a usu. in set collocations <to operate with vigour and decision> to ply (lit); a brush/duster, to brush/wipe, to have a quick whip around with a brush/duster. baetri~ to flash a torch. Ala dola~ to wink at (with one eye as a gesture customary in playfull complicity, amorous invitation), to give A glad eye (slang, in amorous invitation) {hat} ~ saykəl ~ (to push the bicycle in a sudden burst of speed). {tang}~

2b2b usu. in set collocations <to perform vigorously, animatedly with despatch, etc.> to make, have, do, play, etc. aroli denə/~/ thoknə to let out a cry/shout. {hak} ~ to call out (cf. hak dene to acknowledge a call by shouting back). šit(t)i ~to whistle loudly. {bəythək/ tomna/tan/thap/bədhai/lədhai/veth~.,gəppa/zpr/bəythəka (all pl)~ ({gəppə̌̌, zor, bəythək}). sonŋgtyanca dav^ou ya ek let's ha quick game of pachisi. {ləghvi}~(slang) to have a slash (Brit. slang).

2c cf. marnə, zhodne bədəvnə, subj :  rain , obj. dispensed with <> to beat [down] ghərača pəščimeča əŋgala pavsanə/panyanə ^olə the rain beat : on the western side of the house.

3 colloq. cf. thoknə, obj. never with –la, usu, in set collocations <to obtain by some smart or determined action> to manage to get have/take/make/win/steal. məža ~ to enjoy oneself hugely, sigretca dəm/zhurka~ to take a drag/puff at the cigarette. kusti~ to win the wrestling bout (quickly). car tas zhop ^·li grabbed/snatched four hours sleep (in spite of adverse circumstances). zəra cəha/soda ^ou ya let's go and have a quick cup of tea/bottle of pop (comp. to make a killing). pakit/ghədyal ~ to steal/knock off (colloq.) the wallet/watch.

*4 ^oun (syn: sədkun, rəgdun, dabun, copun, all colloq., with verb) in plenty, like mad, anything. tyanə məla ^ounšivya dilya he cursed/abused me up and down. {^otyaca hat dhərəvto pən boltyac tond dhərəvt nahi prov.}

**5 Ača gəlyat X ~ to get rid of X on to A. || ačif {gand} (to perform pederasty with A): ||gav ~to lot/ransack a village||təlvar/dhar {~ebl}.|| Ača mathi~ to thrust/impose X on A. || maša ~ {maši}). ║meleyala ^ou nəye don't strike a dead man/a man when he is down, || vat ~to harass the roads, to do highway robbery. || vel ~ ^oun nenə {¹vel 2al}.

²´ÖÖ¸üÖê / ¾Öê marnə { marnə 2c} VI usu. in set collocations. subj: smell, pain, shade, trace< to be/become strikingly perceptible>. ithə kəsl@ təri vas/ghan ^oət ahe there is some king of smell/stink around here, it smells/stinks around here. mažha pathit kal/cəmək ^oli I felt/got a (shooting) pain in my back.  Xmədhe Yči {čhəta}/čhaya/žhak ^ote there is an air/a trace/something of Y in X

⁹¾Öêôû 1 vel Fa (with ²-a, ²-i, ²-c@ cf. ²vel, prəsŋgə, səməy, ²ghədi, kal, khep, vəkhət, ^oprəsə ŋg.

1<point or span of time marked on an axis as before or after or overlapping with another, time as countable, French foies (as opposed to : temps)> time (countable). hi pəhilic~this is the first time. prəttyak/dər ^oi/kehpela every time. maglya/pudhlya ^oi/khepela on the previous/next occasion, before/later. kiti ^oakitida? how many times? divasatun ek/don~/ ^oa ževt@ has one/two main meals a day. {veloveli/ velovela}. N ^ola N times; (adverbially cf               {-da} on N occasions, N times.)

2<point or span of time when something happened happens regularly/will happen or when some state of affairs obtained / will obtain-and specif. as such> time. ževayči~zhali [ahe] it is meal time now, dinner is ready. ževayča ^oi at meal time(s). ževayči ~ təlli/houn geli t is past meal time. pahteci/səkalči/duparči/səndhyakalči ratriči ~({pəhat/səkal/etc.} rasp.) tinhisanz(e) či~ ({tinhisanza}) dusk. səkalči~hoti it was morning (at that time). ek~əši hoti ki P there was a time when P, time was when P (lit.). gərdič~rush hour. gədbədiča ^oli at a busy hour. kamači ~working hour. zhopayči~bedtime, ləgnači~the. wedding hour. pəri:kseči~the time of the examination/test; the hour of trial(point), testing time(span). səŋketača ^oli in the hour of need, when ONE is in (real) trouble. gadiči~ hot ali it is almost/nearly time for the train. bus (to arrive/to depart). sinemača ^oa showing times (at a cinema house). amča azobanča ^oči gostə (cf. kal) let me tell you something from our grandfather's time/day(s). thər (le) lya/saŋgit (le) lya ^oli at the appointed time.  to vistəv petvət hota; tyac ^oi....he was lighting a fire; at the same time/just at the time.... hi Vayči~ali it fell to A's lot to V, A had to V.

2a cf. prəsəŋgə̌̌< point or span of time characterizble by some quality or value – and specif. as such> time, situation. əša ^oli at a time like this. bhəltya ^oi at an inopportune moment, at the wrong time; at an unearthly hour. itki~yeipəryyəntə tumhi svəsthə̌̌ bəslat? did you do nothing until things had reached that point/had gone that far? šantə̌̌/thəndə̌̌/allhaddayək ~ quiet/cool/pleasent hour [of the day]. coranci~ (suitable for theives' activity).

2al <> time, occasion, situation, vadhdivasača ^oi/presəŋgi on the occasion of the birthday. anəndac@~/ presəŋg happy/joyous occasion. əša. ^oi/presəŋgi tumhi kay kəral? what will you do in a situation like that? ^olenusar/presəŋganusar as the occassion demands. ~/presəgə̌̌al@mhənže if the occasion arises. ^oi/presəŋgi/ ^opresəŋgi/presəŋgala if the occasion arises/ demands. ~ presəŋg pədl@/al@ tər ditto.  ~ presəŋg /^opresəŋgə̌̌al@c tər, təs@c~/ presəŋgə al@  tər if necessary; if it comes to that, if it comes to push, when the chips are down (the last three progessively more serious in implication). ~/ presəŋgə nibhavl@ (VI) the situation was saved. ~/ presəŋg nibhavnə was saved.~/ presəŋg nibhavnə (VT)/nibhavun                nenə to cope with a difficult situation. ~/ presəŋgə̌̌ marnə/marun nenə to manage to make the bst of a difficult occasion. ~/ presəŋgə̌̌  /^o presəŋgə̌̌ /^ovəkhət/kal^o/^okal pahun/olkhun having assessed the situation, circumspectly. Avər (kəthin/bac@ presəŋgə̌̌/~al@ betl@/odhəvl/gudərl@ A found himself in a difficult situation, A was having a tough time. ~/ ^ovəkhət saŋgun yet nahi you never know what might happen/ turn up.  ~ahe, presəŋg/vəkhət ahe; zəvəl ankhi pəyse əsu dya you never know what might happen/turn up; take a few pounds. etc. extra with you. Avər panyat budnyač@ ~ presəŋgĕ/pali@. al A (was once nearly drowned. Avər Xč@Vayc@ ~/ presəŋgə̌̌/palial@ (X, Vl usu unpleasant) A did happen to V/have occasion to V/etc (neutral) l it feel to Ato V, A found HIMself facing X,etc. (unpleasant.) amhi natək bəsəvla/ləgnə kelə; tya ^oi/ presəŋgi..... we staged a play/got married; on that occasion....gelya/maglya/maǧca ^oli/presəŋgi/khepela the 1^st time, on the previous occasion. pudhlya   ^oli/ etc, the next time.

2b opp. əvel   <point or span of time/regarded as opportune, convenient, appropriate, etc. – as specif. in the context> time gadi ^olevəl ali the train/bus came on time (according  to the schedule)/. in time (for some purpose). mulinči ləgnə  ^o(ča ) ^olevər/  ^olevəri zhali pahižet girls should be married at the proper time. Anə ^olela mədət keli A helped when help was needed. Anə ^olevər mədət keli A's help came at the right time/in time. ^oča ^oli/^oča ^olevər punctually, regularly. ^oleča adhi səmple@ was over before the proper time.

2b1 syn: 1sədhi F<> opportunity, chance, ~ (nighun) geli the oppurtunity was lost. ~ sadhnə to find the right time. ~ghaləvnə, dəvdənə (cf. {²~1}) to miss ONE's chance, to let the opportunity slip [through[ONE's fingers]].

2c<point or span of time regarded from the standpoint of astrology as auspicious, etc., esp. one of the cycle of 8 spans of 1 ½ hours each into which a day/night is divided> (ekeka) ^oleca gunəstol every moment has its favourable or adverse effect. kamala~ caŋgli/vait lagli it turned out to be an auspicious/ inauspicious time for the undertaking. zati/yeti~time of loss/gain. {ghat ^o}. { əmrtt ^o}, etc. ({-vela}^۰).

3<the particular scaling of the time axis agreed on conventionally for timing clocks> time. sthanik/prəman~local/standard~. bharəti:y prəman Indian Standard Time (I.S.T., 5 ½ hours ahead of G.M.T.) gri:niž prəman^o  Greenwich Mean Time (G.M.T.).

**4 ~bhərli ({²ghədi}) the time is up. || ^o lecəbhan syn: velace bhan {²vel}1} .~səmpli syn:

vel səmpla ({²vel 1b}) the time is up. || ^oleča əbhavi syn: velača əbhavi ({²vel 1}) for want of time.

**5 {kal ala hota pən~ali nəvhti prov.} || mədhli ~ {~1} also < (the time of ) the minor meal halfway between the two main mals – around 3-5 p.m.> || ek~P təri calel, P təri ek ~calel (P: with V 1@; also with ekhadya  ^•lela/ ^oles for ek ~) it would do if P; one may not mind so much if P (but...) ek~ to əykel, pən... for once he may listen, but....

²¾Öêôû vel M cf. vel, kal, səməy.

1<time as measurable, occupiable, spendable, esp. in relatively short stretches measured by the clock rather than by the calendar, French temps (as opposed to fois)> time, survatica ~(the time at) the begining. don gadyanča mədhla ~ the interval between two trains tin tas [~] three hours, three hours' time. kiti ~ šillək ahe? puskel/thoda. how much time is left? a lot/a little. kiti ~ he calnar ahe? puskəl/thoda ~ calel. (for) how long will this go on? it will go (for) a long/ short time/while (while rather lit.). zanya-yenya-mədhe tyaca bərac/phar/ puskəl~(phukət) modto/zato he hs to spend/waste a lot of (his) time going and coming. tyaca ~ bəra/mežet zato he passes the time pleasantly. itka/bərac/ thoda ~ to kahi bollac nahi he did not say anything forall this/a long/short time/while. medhala ~pukəht gela the time in between was wasted. ~modnə/kadhnə/ghaləvnə (all VT) to spend/pass time. ~ kadhnə/ghalə vnə/dəvədnə to while away time. zəra ^olan ə sometime, after a while, a litter later. Vayla/X sathi (Aca) ~ ghenə to takə up some (of A's) time for X/to V. ~ kadhnə to waste time. ~denə to allot/allow/spare time. A/X sathi ~ kadhnə to set aside spare time for A/X. ^olat  ~kadhnəto manage te spare time, Ala ~phavla obsolescent A got some spare time time, gatanna~kuthe/kəsa (nighun) gela (te) amhala kəllə nahi we couldn't make out where the time had gone to while we were singing, we (completely) lost track of the time while we were singing, Ala ^olacə   bhan ahe (syn: valecə bhan) A keeps track of time. phursətiea~leisure time/hours. rikama~ free time. kamaca~(cf. kamači {vel 2}) (time available for working) working time. Ala Vayla~lagla A took a lot of /a little to V. ˚lača əbhavi (syn: valeča əbhavi) for want of time.

la syn: puskəl~ <> a lot of time.  

1b syn: əvedhi 2 <period of alloted time> ~səmpla/bhərla (syn:{¹vel4} səmpli/bherli, {²ghədi) the time is up.

2 syn. ə vəkaš 2 <period of unoccupied time>

2a in losse use, syn : ušir<delay.

2b ~/phavla ~yab : əvəkaš 2b<spare time> phavlya ˚lat i spare time.

**3 Ala ~zhala 1A was late. 2 A could spare some time. ¿Ö²¤ü ¹šəbdə̌̌ M

1 lit., tech.; cf, visəy, avaz, dhvəni; məhabhut.

la s/v; hon ə nighnə <sensum of hearing> sound {nis˚ 1} full of silence.

1b o/v: kərnə <vocal sound by animate being> pəksi mənžul ~kərit hote birds were making sweet sounds/were chirping sweetly. tyača tondun~phute na he couldn't utter a sound.

2a usu. in negating context <stretch of meaningful human speech, especially one as short as a word > kamabəddəl (ek) ~ /˚danəbolla nahi did't say a word/thing about the work. ~ kadhu nəko! don't say a word! mažha to tondun~nighun gela the word escaped me/my lips. {čəkar~}. {nis˚ .2} silent. don~bolnə to say a few words, to make a brief speech.

2b often in pl.; cf. bol<act of linguistic communication, content of such an act-as promise, prediction, request wish censure, etc., usu.specif. by the context> ragaca~word of anger don~saŋgne to say a few words (of advice, information, etc.) ~ (pl.) mage ghenə to withdraw ONE's words to take back what ONE said, to eat ONE's words (under humiliating circumstances). Ala ~ denə (ki P) to give ONE's word to A (that P). Aca~khota pədla/ thərla A's promise was not made good, A's recommendation failed to carry weight. Anə apl@~ khər@ sg. or pl.) kel@ A made good his words. A was as good as his word. Aca~khər/khot@/khot@zhal@ (sg. or pl.) A's prediction came true/false. {bol}/~lavnə etc. əkherca~last word. Aca~khali pədla nahi A's word did not go unheeded/unchallenged. Aca ~zhelnə to accede to A's wishes. Azəvəl (Bsathi~taknə to put in/to have a word with a (for B). Aca~mannə to show regard for A's word. ^·danə~vadhto a word in anger leads to another. {da ^odi}

2c<piece of communication carrying (divine) authority>authority; the word (of God). ^o{prəman} ^o{brəmmhə̌}.

3 often in pl., cf. ərthə̌̌ <linguistic communication in its outward, formal, stylistic aspects, as opposed to meaning, content, experience, knowledge, action-usu. specif. by the context>.kay vatlə te məla ^oda(m) mədhe saŋgta yet nahi. I can't say in words what I felt. ^odaləkar ({ələŋkar}). thodya/mozkya/god/etc, ^odat sangitlə said in a few /in a few measured/ in nice/etc., words.  ^obdanči/{šabdik{kəsrət verbal acrobatics. {šahnyala ^odaca mar prov.} ~nəkot, kriti pahiže! not words, but deeds, acta non verba (Latin). ganyace~anical the words/lyrics and the tune/melody/music of a song.

4 cf. pəd, vakkvə̌̌

4a<word-token, spoken or written, as a division of a sentence> word. pəhilya 9 danna 75 pəyse 75 paisas for the firs 9 words. ~khanə/galnə to omit a word by mistake (not: to eat ONE's word). ^odacə {vyakərən} sanŋgnə to parse a word.

4b <word-type, spoken or written, as dictionary entry; inflectional set organised around the basic member, esp. nominal set> ~word. nədi~caləvnə to/decline the word nadi {˚səŋgrəhə̌̌} vocabulary. {˚koš}. {˚bdarthə̌̌} gloss for a word.

---

Top

Dictionaries Of Modern Indian Languages Assessment And Recommendations

A.R. Kelker

Available Material

             The Dictionaries of modern Indian Languages can be classified in various ways :

 (a) according to the number of languages covered :

 

1.       monolingual

2.       bilingual

3.       multilingual.

 

(b) according to the status of the language provided for :

 

1.       standard or literary language in the Eighth schedule;

2.       non-standard dialect or language associated with a standard language;

3.       languages or dialects of the scheduled Tribes.

 

(c) according to the scope of the coverage (especially in the case of standard or literary languages in the Eighth Schedule :

1.       comprehensive coverage of the various historical stages including the contemporary stage;

2.       coverage chiefly of the contemporary stage;

3.       coverage of some portion of the vocabulary delimited according to subject-matter etc.

 

The principal bibliographies of the published material with language-wise classification are the following :

 

India (Republic). Ministry of Education National Library.

 

A bibliography of dictionaries, and encyclopedias in Indian Languages. Calcutta :  National Library, 1964.

 

Pattanayak, Debi Prasanna. Indian Languages bibliography of grammars, dictionaries, and teaching materials : A preliminary publication. New Delhi :  Educational Resources Center , 1967.

 

Roy Burman, B.K. Bibliography in tribal languages, New Delhi ;  Social Studies and Handicrafts Unit, Office of the Registrar General no date.

 

A perusal of these bibliographies will show that at least quantitatively the following areas are fairly adequately provided for : monolingual dictionaries (a, 1)

 

English-Indian languages dictionaries (a, 2)

Hindi-Indian languages dictionaries (a. 2)

 

Languages of the Eighth Schedule (b, 1)

 

Coverage chiefly of the contemporary stage (c, 2)

 

While the following are rather poorly represented :

 

Indian languages-English dictionaries (a, 2; those listed tend to be outdated or out of print)

 

Indian languages-Hindi dictionaries (a, 2)

 

Indian languages – Indian languages dictionaries other than those noted separately              (a, 2; for example : Marathi-Bengali, Urdu-Tamil, etc.)

 

Non-standard speech forms associated with a standard language (b, 2)

 

Specialized vocabularies (c, 3: other than more English-Indian Languages, Indian Languages-English listings without explanations of any kind )

 

Most of the material has been published in India or (before 1947) in England with Government of India support in some form.

 

The quality of the material.

 

In the matter of externals such as the quality of the paper, printing and binding, typography, etc, there is a good deal of variation depending on the place of publication and region and on the auspices of publication (government, university, private scholarly institutions, commercial publications, etc, ). The following observations may be made :

 

(a) Pictures, diagrams, and other visual aids are virtually unknow; if present at all, they tend to be of poor quality.

 

(b) In commercial publications there is sometimes variation within the same edition-some copies will be printed on better paper and be bound better and will be the first to be circulated, later copies of the same edition or later reprinting being of poor quality.

 

(c) Multi-volume dictionaries are hardly ever reprinted; single volume dictionaries that have proved to be popular tend to be reprinted without any revisions, improvements, or supplements.  The practice of incorporating addenda and corrigenda sent i by the readers is, needless to say, unknown.

 

(d) So far as accuracy of printing is concerned, Marathi, Gujarathi, and a good deal of Hindi material attains reasonably high standards; about other languages the present writer is not in a position to say.

(e) The device of cross-reference and entries consisting solely of cross-reference is either unknown or exploited in a limited and haphazard manner.

 

(f) Typographical devices such as the use of different type-faces, symbols, spacing and layout are only beginning to be exploited.

 

(g) There is very little attempt to standardize and define clearly a scheme of alphabetization, orthography, shapes of, letters where options exist (as with conjunct consonants), and the like.

 

The best way of assessing the contents of these dictionaries will be to set out what a typical single entry will look like.  It may be noted that there is on the whole little realization that this format can be significantly manipulated to suit the special purpose of the dictionary.  Items which are optional (i.e. missing in most of the less ambitious dictionaries) are marked with an asterisk.

 

  (a) entry word in the local script

*(b) transliteration in Roman or Devanagari

*(c) origin tag-Sanskrit, Persian, English, etc.

  (d) part of speech tag

*(e) subclass tag-gender of a noun, transitivity of a verb (little or no information on       declensional or conjugational types or irregularities).

  (f) string of glosses - *(with some punctuational structuring).

*(g) idioms with glosses

*(h) citations from literary texts.

*(i) etymology.

 

            This is obviously a rather hand-to-mouth scheme-especially when the starred items are missing, as they are n most single-volume dictionaries.  There is of course some recognition that dictionary –making is a scholarly activity – though back work is abundant, but little conception that any specialized knowledge or skill will be required; in particular there is no relationship with either descriptive or historical or dialectological linguistics.  It is not uncommon to find that trained linguists are missing in the staff of ambitious dictionaries projects even after the advent of linguistic studies in Indian in the nineteen – fifties.  This has led to some serious lacunae in these dictionaries with the exception of recent specialized work done out side India .  These are –

 

(a) Information on pronunciation is usually missing; in general spoken language is neglected.

(b) There is no coordination with grammar – no listing of morphological irregularities or details about syntactic peculiarities.

            (c) In selecting an entry word or a citation for inclusion no consistent policies are formulated-for example, comprehensive dictionaries will include data from earlier stages, non-standard dialects, or associated literary languages (e.g. classical Sanskrit or Braj or Avadhi in Hindi dictionaries) without discrimination, consistent labelling, or consistency or coverage).

 

(d) Etymological information is often innocent of the techniques of historical linguistics.

 

In dictionary-making it is inevitable that later work will tend to take over a good deal from earlier dictionaries.  This is, however often carried to an excess.  Errors will be safely handed down through generations.  The publications of a new dictionary may be undertaken without even any pretence to fresh spadework.

 

In general the picture is not a very bright one.

 

Some recommendations

 

(1)           In general, trained linguists should have a greater hand in the planning and execution of dictionaries.  This means that students of linguistics will have to over come their reluctance to face long-drawn-out projects and plain drudgery; and that traditional scholars will have to get over their hostility or indifference to linguistics.

(2)           In the matter of providing glosses requiring specialized information of flora, fauna, music, medicine, ritual, etc. the practice of seeking the cooperation of specialists should be encouraged.

(3)           There should be a clear separation between dictionaries recording past or present usage and between technical dictionaries recommending new terms for the future.  In case there is some practical need to combine the two kinds of work there should be clear labelling in this matter.

(4)           Explicit discussions and conscious formulation of policies on such matters as transliteration, phonetic transcription, alphabetization, abbreviations, typography and other externals of dictionary-making should be encouraged.

(5)           In encouraging a dictionary project specific care should be taken that the scholarly preliminaries are available.  For example, there is no point in undertaking a dialect dictionary without a dialect survey having been undertaken.  Again a historical dictionary on the lines of the Oxford English Dictionary is not feasible if a large body of texts properly edited and clearly assigned to periods and regional dialects is not available.

(6)           The possibility of modern methods of mechanization, the use of punch cards, sorting machines, computers, tape recording, photocopying should be thoroughly explored and built into a project from the start.  The present writer has known cases where even ordinary card-filing is shirked as too fashionable or too costly.

(7)           Every care should be taken to preserve the cards and other material even after the dictionary is published.  Such material has been known to have been sold away as waste-paper in the past because no one was willing to arrange for the storage. Such stored material should, of course, be accessible to scholars.

(8)           Bilingual dictionaries especially in the different areas like the following should be undertaken :  Indian – English, Indian-Hindi, Foreign-Indian where ‘ Indian’ stands for any of the modern languages in the Eighth Schedule and ‘Foreign’ stands for modern foreign  languages like French, Russian, Sinhalese, Modern Arabic, Japanese. etc.; specialized vocabularies where the entry word is properly defined and explained.

(9)           The use of pictorial aids should be encouraged.  Perhaps good quality pictures could be made available on an all – India basis to ensure low costs.

(10)       In distributing paper quotas the case for a dictionary should receive a sympathetic consideration.

(11)       Experimentation with different methods of presentation from the point of view of book production and of scholarly and scientific considerations is important and should be encouraged.  Good dictionaries published by private publishers should be given prizes, subsidy through bulk orders, etc.  Since experimenting with a whole book is costly, specimen entries or blocks of entries should be produced and widely convassed.  Perhaps Indian Linguistics in collaboration with publishers and projects, can bring out a lexicography number every two years.  Recommendation (4) above should also be borne in mind in this connection. A linguistic scientist who may be unwilling to shoulder the responsibility of whole dictionary may be willing to produce model entries which will serve others.

(12)       The team for any ambitious project-specially when it claims to give etymological or comparative information-should include scholars of the other relevent modern and classical languages (for example, Marathi-knowing, and Sanskrit-knowing scholars for a Kannada dictionary)

(13)       In providing for the study of tribal languages, descriptive analysis and lexicography can go hand in hand. There is really no room now for publishing work by untrained amateurs.

The views expressed in this report are expressed by me in my personal capacity.

 

---

Top