On the importance of including names in lexicographical projects

Unlike some other cultural legacies, languages leave no trace in the archaeological record. There’s often no trace in the written record, either.

Only a small portion of the world’s estimated 7,000 languages are well-documented in places like dictionaries and grammar books. Those that are least well-documented are the most endangered. [Daniel W Hieber, “Renaissance on the bayou: the revival of a lost language”]

We have argued before (see here) for the importance of including proper names data in any study of historical linguistics, and that the usual omission of proper names from standard lexicons is problematic. The quote above highlights these points.

Names, as a part of language, leave very little trace in the archaeological record — there is only the occasional name painted on a pot or carved into a stone. Of the “small portion” of languages which are well-documented in dictionaries, only a portion of each individual language is documented by these dictionaries, given the tendency to wholly omit proper names. The names which are least documented are the ones most endangered: A hapax legomenon which occurs in only one manuscript is in much greater danger of being erased forever. Even a name which has made it out of manuscript and into printed edition, say, a 19th-century edition of a cartularium, are still at risk of being “lost” if no one knows that they are in there. As we’ve also argued before (see here) one reason that people mistakenly identify certain names as modern coinages is simply that they don’t know or don’t have access to the evidence, usually in a culturally or geographically remote context, that shows the name has a much longer history. Without detailed onomastic lexicons, an important part of our linguistic history is threatened with extinction.

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “On the importance of including names in lexicographical projects

  1. A really great point. The Chitimacha dictionary we’re working on has personal names, place names for towns, bayous, etc. We learn a lot from the names as well as the other lexemes.

  2. A great point. The Chitimacha dictionary we’re working on has personal names, names of towns, bayous, etc. They tell us a lot about both the grammar and the culture.

  3. Pingback: On the importance of including names in lexicog...

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s