Correction on modern Arabic dictionaries

Correction to modern Arabic dictionaries "The correction to modern Arabic dictionaries" is one of the editions of the King Salman Global Academy for the Arabic Language, and it was issued in 2023. The book addresses the subject of lexical material in modern Arabic dictionaries, and it is one of the initiatives undertaken by the Academy to support the lexicographical industry and develop linguistic content. An electronic copy of the book can be obtained through the available link. Author: Abdulaziz Al-Masoudi. Publication date: 2023. Subject: Focuses on the importance of keeping the Arabic dictionary up to date with modern usage through analysis of lexical material. Edition: Published by King Salman Global Academy for the Arabic Language. Abdulaziz Al-Masoudi, the correction to Arabic dictionaries, 851 pages, Riyadh, King Salman Global Academy for Modern Arabic Language, 2023, ISBN 978-603-8413-11-1. The author divided his book into two sections, making the first section either "for analyzing lexical data" and built it on three chapters branching into several different chapters from one to another. This section came in 395 pages, in which he studied most of the lexicographical issues related to collecting dictionaries, compiling them, and the subsequent correction of the earlier ones. The first chapter of this section, "Theoretical framing," is on page 65; it consists of two parts: the first came in 14 pages dedicated to the author to identify the differences between "the moderate natural dictionary" through returning to the comments of Saussure, the Clear Walidiya school, and Lail bin Ahmed Al-Farahidi. The second chapter spans 56 pages dedicated to "the corrected material." Therefore, the author stated that he would thoroughly discuss the phenomenon of correction, starting with the efforts of the ancient scholars in lexicography, especially passing through manifestations of correction among modern Arab lexicographers and researchers, and ending with the relationship between "linguistics and documentation issues." The second chapter of this first section is on page 143. It was necessary to consider "the current description" and divided into three chapters. The first chapter did not exceed 10 pages, generally concerned with "classification of lexical units," their boundaries, structure, and terminology. The small second chapter extended over 87 pages, detailing "lexical units," focusing on their different structures, including derivational and affixal mechanisms. The third chapter, in 40 pages, examined "compound lexical units and expanded lexical units"; the former refers to syntactically constructed units like the adjective phrase, and the latter to current expressions, idioms, and proverbs. The third section of the first part begins on page 176. The author chose to include "clear description," divided into three chapters. The first extends over 68 pages; it has "loanwords" as its core, establishing the phenomenon of diseases from other languages and the Arabic language's resistance to foreign sounds (letters and movements) that are outside its system, along with the images of copies. The second chapter, over 33 pages, focuses on "duality and differentiation"; by duality, he means a situation where bilingual speakers use language for daily needs, not in formal or official contexts. This reflects the situation in most Arab communities, with diverse dialects and health. The "diversity" of the linguistic state is the result of incorporating units from different Arabic dialects into the standard language; thus, the discussion in this chapter remains within lexicographical judgments by their types. The third chapter, over 51 pages, discusses "the movement of the lexicon evolving in dictionary content," detailing three points: the first is "manifestations of lexical clarity" at the levels of the sign, the meaning, and other relationships. The second compares the two periods, referring to the two timeframes related to the components of the documented corrected unit. The last point addresses "the comprehensiveness of dictionaries in light of the corrected material," calling for dictionaries whose selection is a criterion for judgment, including the corrected units. To reach the number of pages in the second section of the book, 391 pages. This section is headed "An introduction to reading lexical data." Throughout the entire work, in seven pages, are explanatory aids for reading symbols used in online platforms where the corrected lexical units are listed; these are fourteen symbols, each referring to a piece of information documenting each unit. In addition to other attributes, it includes tables of the corrected units, totaling 2,151 lexical units arranged alphabetically. It concludes with documenting French or English terms as well as Arabic terms accepted in research, along with a list of resources and references, and sources of the lexical documentation from the first period (1904–1920), which can be reasonably identified as the corrected units. Following that is a list of Arabic and foreign references. The author included this in the first pages of the book (pages 5–17). There is a clear balance between the two sections of the book: 395 pages / 391 pages. However, it seems to us that the first section, dealing with legal issues, is predominantly theoretical, while the second section has an operational nature. With this book, we seem to deal with a living entity as large as its body. The author did not overlook any detail or flower related to the topic, whether distant or close. This indicates that he is a brave researcher in research issues, but at the same time, it shows the need to distinguish between what is essential and necessary and what is important but can be overlooked, considering that it is suitable for this research and allows participation in lexicography. Due to the importance of the author's presentation of the types of derived lexical units in the second chapter of the second section in a detailed manner that the third academic approach does not require, it seems to us that the absence of the absent in the number of attributes between the chapters (pages 65/143/176) and between the chapters (ranging from 10 to 87 pages) justifies the degree of reliance on each section and the need for a special or summarized knowledge-based registration. Whatever the difficulties of the study method followed by the author in presenting the material, which is mostly a tour in both sections, chapters, and isolated sections, everything he searches for aims to clarify the importance of the topic, followed by content presentation, analysis, and mostly critique, ending with. It is worth noting that the book is the fruit of a long, multi-dimensional effort. The author relied on readings that challenge the preservation of modern Arabic grammatical and lexicographical heritage and drew upon readings from linguistics to meet the need for 2,151 corrected lexical units in dictionaries. His models are based on extrapolating "thirty narrative works" from a collection of 20th-century writers' samples, distributed over two periods. He presented what he derived from units in the "Five Months of the Arabic Lexicon" (p. 423) to justify his claim of the corrected units. This, in my opinion, testifies to the researchers' perseverance, fasting, piety, effort, and diligence. This book has many strengths, some of which can be mentioned as examples, not limited to, such as its distinguished features required in academic studies: it begins with an investigative overview of the research topic, dedicating about a hundred pages. It explicitly states that its research field is the general linguistic lexicon (note p. 78) and explicitly states that it is in "linguistics of documentation / empirically guided documentation" (p. 97). It defines the main standards used in the corrected units for control (p. 85) and clarifies the steps followed in the research (pp. 95–96). After that, it does not merely suggest modifications or note phenomena but often applies various analyses that aim to eliminate phenomena and critique them. Among these is its reliance on a documentation from the Arab Maghreb and the East, which he carefully examines in a chapter within linguistic documentation (establishing loanwords, pp. 253–276), addressing the face and aspects of hidden influence with Western civilization. Due to the colonial period, the dominant culture in Morocco was Francophone, while in the East, the Anglo-Saxon influence was prevalent. This explains the presence of borrowed lexical units from both cultures in the documentation, sometimes reaching the level of synonymy. Also, the idea of relying on documentation based on these two sources is a sound concept. It enabled him to study the semantic development of units over the two periods (p. 373), observing development in signification, meaning, and the transformation of relationships between signs and meanings. He acknowledged it as a valid basis for analyzing the growth of the proportion of borrowed units between the two periods, indicating a difference between European sources, where the number of borrowed units increases, and Turkish sources, where it decreases (p. 386). This led him to formulate a semantic classification distribution of borrowed units. This is a commendable initiative that responds to the formation of a historical lexicographical approach, which scholars still emphasize the need for in Arabic lexicography. The author explicitly stated that he worked on the general linguistic lexicon, subtly indicating the difference between the common language and the specialized language. This is one of the matters considered in modern lexicography, which distinguishes between the common language used in linguistics (linguistics) of daily life among the general populace and the specialized language, which is used in terminology and its application in fields like linguistics (linguistics), applied sciences, intelligence, or mathematics. The specialized language focuses on terminology, which belongs to the field of science, not daily life. However, in several parts, the author uses the term "terminology" (e.g., p. 354), as if he realized that many of the corrected units are from the specialized lexicon (e.g., volt, p. 316; phosphoric acid, p. 319; weak antagonist, p. 322). It is appropriate to ask whether there is a need to distinguish in this study between corrected units from the general lexicon and to dedicate another study to corrected units from the specialized lexicon. For this reason, it is necessary to refer to the works of Arab scientific academies to indicate the echo of what they issued in terms of tools relevant to sciences, especially medicine, among scholars. The Lisan Al-Arab dictionary, one of the five influential dictionaries, distinguishes between what belongs to the discovered tribe and what does not. We respect this choice, but we believe it is a dictionary of vocabulary, and to clarify the picture further, it should be supported by a topical dictionary like Ibn Fattah’s Al-Muḥaṣṣaṣ. This is a subject related to his topic, and although relying on it requires joint effort, it is rich and contains elements not found in a vocabulary dictionary.