The evolution of English lexicography by James Augustus Henry Murray
page 33 of 42 (78%)
page 33 of 42 (78%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
new edition, embracing many such accessions, was prepared by the
learned Archdeacon Todd, and 'Todd's Johnson' continues to be an esteemed work to our own day. But only two independent contributions to the development of lexicography were made in the earlier half of the nineteenth century. These were the American work of Noah Webster, and the English work of Dr. Charles Richardson. Webster was a great man, a born definer of words; he was fired with the idea that America ought to have a dictionary of its own form of English, independent of British usage, and he produced a work of great originality and value. Unfortunately, like many other clever men, he had the notion that derivations can be elaborated from one's own consciousness as well as definitions, and he included in his work so-called 'etymologies' of this sort. But Etymology is simply Word-history, and Word-history, like all other history, is a record of the _facts_ which _did_ happen, not a fabric of conjectures as to what may have happened. In the later editions of Webster, these 'derivations' have been cleared out _en masse_, and the etymology placed in the hands of men abreast of the science of the time; and the last edition of Webster, the _International_, is perhaps the best of one-volume dictionaries. Richardson started on a new track altogether. Observing how much light was shed on the meaning of words by Johnson's quotations, he was impressed with the notion that, in a dictionary, definitions are unnecessary, that quotations alone are sufficient; and he proceeded to carry this into effect by making a dictionary without definitions or explanations of meaning, or at least with the merest rudiments of them, but illustrating each group of words by a large series of quotations. In the collection of these he displayed immense research. |
|