Contrasting Approaches to Spanish LexicographyAuthor(s): Brian SteelSource: Hispania, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Mar., 1971), pp. 46-53Published by: American Association of Teachers of Spanish and PortugueseStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/338091 .Accessed: 05/04/2011 10:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatsp. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Hispania.

http://www.jstor.org

CONTRASTING APPROACHES TO SPANISH LEXICOGRAPHY

BRIAN STEEL Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

SINCE THE FOUNDATION of the

Real Academia Espafiola de la Lengua in the eighteenth century, the basic ap- proach to lexicography and grammar in

Spain has been marked by its excessive caution and dogmatic purism. The exist- ence of an official body whose duties in- clude those of debating the claims to acceptability of words and syntactical pat- terns in common or specialized use has meant that both the DRAE and the GRAE lag perpetually behind in many matters of current usage. Even the 1965 edition of the DRAE is as notable for the items which it omits as for those which it approves.'

Because of this perpetual lag, Spanish lexicographers and grammarians have con- stantly responded to the need to produce supplementary dictionaries and grammars dealing with current usage-especially in those cases where there seems to be a doubt about the correctness of a word or con- struction. The general aim of such com- pilers has been to provide a guide to help interested Spanish speakers conform in their speech and writing to what is "ac- ceptable." The common feature of these dictionaries and supplements is that they attempt to banish words, idioms and syn- tactical phenomena judged by the com- pilers to be inconsistent with or harmful to the structure and traditions of the Span- ish language. In other words, the compilers, like the Academy, attempt to legislate on language matters. The purist character of the following works all published between 1900 and 1935, is evident in their titles:

(a) iPobre lengua! Catdlogo en que se indican mids de 300 voces y locuciones in- correctas hoy comunes en Espaiia;

(b) Frases impropias, barbarismos, sole- cismos y extranjerismos de uso mas fre- cuente en la prensa y la conversacidn;

(c) Guia del buen decir; estudio de las transgresiones gramaticales mids comunes;

(d) Disparates usuales en la conversa- cidn diaria.2

In more recent years, the desire to pro- nounce authoritative and authoritarian judgment on matters of linguistic correct- ness (especially with regard to neologisms and extranjerismos) has been partly satis- fied in Spain and in Latin America by series of newspaper articles written by emi- nent grammarians and Academicians. Usually these series of articles have subse- quently been gathered together and pub- lished in book form to satisfy the general demand in different Spanish-speaking areas for reference works dealing with usage problems and giving etymological informa- tion. Typical of these works are Consul- torio gramatical de urgencia by Arturo Capdevila, Cosas del lenguaje by Julio Casares and Hablemos del lenguaje by Humberto Toscano.3 To these may be added a special sub-class, consisting of works like Casares' Novedades en el Dic- cionario and Angel Rosenblat's Buenas y malas palabras en el castellano de Vene- zuela4 which represent attempts to explain to the public, with an interesting amount of etymological information, why certain words and constructions have qualified for inclusion in forthcoming editions of the DRAE and the Diccionario de venezolanis-

Mnos, respectively. Nevertheless, however useful such works

may be to the language specialist and the literary scholar, neither they nor the DRAE provide the type or quantity of

46

CONTRASTING APPROACHES TO SPANISH LEXICOGRAPHY 47

lexicographical or grammatical information which average native speakers or advanced foreign students of Spanish need to guide them on matters of current usage.

Even the promisingly entitled Diccio- nario de dificultades de la lengua espahiola by E. Diaz-RetgW turns out, on examina- tion, to be just as unsatisfactory since it consists, as J. K. Leslie has pointed out in a review,6 of a rather arbitrary selection of words (mainly gentilicios) which can be found in most standard dictionaries.

Fortunately for those in need of sound reference books on Spanish usage, there appeared in 1961 a work which repre- sented a great step forward, away from purism towards a more pragmatic approach to the phenomena and problems of con- temporary usage. This work, the Diccio- nario de dudas y dificultades de la lengua espaiola by Manuel Seco,' is now an in- valuable standard reference work for all speakers, teachers and advanced students of Peninsular Spanish.

Because this work contrasts so sharply with preceding efforts in its approach to usage roblems, Seco's conception of the role of the grammarian and lexicographer is worth quoting: "El arte del gramaitico ha de estar en olfatear lo que la robusta naturaleza del idioma acabarai por asimilar o por repudiar, y en colaborar con la con- ciencia lingiiistica de los hablantes en la eliminaci6n de los brotes excesivos" (Ad- vertencia p. xiii). Although an authori- tarian tone is very noticeable in the work, it reflects the authority gained by knowl- edge and tempered by observation of real usage and by practical common sense rather than the dictatorial and narrow- minded authority evident in so many other works. Indeed, in many cases, Seco merely quotes current usage without feeling obliged to express a personal opinion or recommendation. He has, as he says, looked for "el testimonio del uso" and is thus well ahead of both the cautious aca- demic and the purist approaches. The ex- tent to which users of his Diccionario can

trust Seco's judgment can be gauged quite well by examining his treatment of expres- sions like tarea a realizar.8 He lists these as usos incorrectos but then goes on to say that "estain obteniendo enorme difu- si6n" and concludes that "Es probable que no tarde en ser acogida esta f6rmula por todos, no s6lo como consecuencia de su creciente auge, sino de la relativa necesi- dad que nuestra lengua siente de tal cons- trucci6n. . . . Lo recomendable es utilizar los giros espafioles siempre que sea posible, sin rechazar el extrafio cuando la comodi- dad y la raipidez lo pidan y el buen gusto no se resienta por ello."

Here we have a work which we can all safely recommend and use ourselves to supplement our other reference works on contemporary Peninsular Spanish-whether our problem be one of pronunciation, spell- ing, rigimen, grammar or word usage.

If I have dwelt at length on this well- known work by Seco, it has been to stress the refreshing change of approach which it displays and also because this dictionary must be regarded as a trail blazer for the other major general work on contemporary usage published in Spain in recent years, namely the Diccionario de uso del espaiol by Maria Moliner.9

The three thousand pages of Moliner's work are evidently the fruit of a far more exhaustive study of the contemporary lan- guage than Seco's, but the pragmatic ap- proach is similarly novel and useful, since, as the title indicates, the dictionary deals with Spanish that is currently in use. As a practical work of reference on current Peninsular Spanish, this work is far supe- rior to the DRAE precisely because its scope is not limited to words which are approved. (It also breaks new ground in offering new definitions of the words listed and in dispensing with rigid alphabetical arrangement so that work families can be grouped together). Moliner's dictionary also offers concise, useful and up-to-date information on grammatical usage (e.g. there are two pages-at approximately

48 BAN STEEL

1,200 words per page-devoted to acento, two to adjetivo, three to articulo, forty- three pages to verb tables and explanations of tense usage, and so on). In addition, in- formation is given on synonyms, the prepo- sitions governed by certain adjectives and verbs and-an especially important aspect for the foreign student-the level at which words are used.

Although a detailed coverage of Ameri- can Spanish seems to have been beyond the scope of the work, many common americanismos are included, and so this dictionary, like Seco's, can be confidently recommended to all hispanistas as being absolutely essential in the study of the contemporary language.x0

Quite clearly, a continuous reappraisal of usage is necessary to improve reference tools and, equally clearly, we have not yet reached the stage where a good single comprehensive usage dictionary covering all Spanish-speaking areas is available for us to consult but the works by Seco and Moliner have at least shown what can be done when the purist blinkers are removed from the compiler's eyes.

In view of such promising new develop- ments in Spanish lexicography, it is most alarming that, as recently as 1967, a pre- scriptive dictionary representing the very worst of the older tradition was published. I refer to the Diccionario de incorrecciones y particularidades del lenguaje by A. Santamaria and A. Cuartas,"1 which is a revision by Cuartas of the Diccionario de incorrecciones de lenguaje published eleven years previously by the late A. Santa- maria.2

I propose to deal at some length with these editions (in particular with the sec- ond one), not only because they are so badly conceived and organized but also be- cause a comparison between them and the works of Seco and Moliner makes more evident the complete methodological supe- riority of the latter over the purist, pre- scriptive approach represented by this

latest (but not necessarily the last) product of a long tradition of such works on Span- ish.

In the first edition, Santamaria states that the inspiration for publishing his work came from reading in the work of Ram6n y Cajal of the patriotic need for "una obra que remedie el gravisimo mal que el idioma padece a causa de la muchedumbre de "barbarismos," "solecismos," y otros vicios que tanto lo afean, bastardean y empobre- cen."13 Seizing this encouragement, Santa- maria proceeds to attempt to purify the language by listing some five thousand voces y locuciones incorrectas. His list con- sists mainly of "incorrect" neologisms but he also deals with a variety of spelling and acentuation problems as well as grammati- cal errors. The layout is simplicity itself in appearance: on the left hand side of each page are the incorrecciones in alpha- betical order and on the right are the forms which have been pronounced cor- rect. The ultimate authorities accepted by Santamaria are "los clasicos, las Academias de la lengua y los grandes escritores de nuestro tiempo"14 and although he does concede that "las fronteras entre lo correcto y lo incorrecto de una lengua en una

tpoca dada no pueden sefialarse con precisi6n,"15 he maintains an inflexible approach to correctness throughout the dictionary. Very occasionally, and then almost in despair, he bows before "el uso general," but only after first listing the offending word as in- correcta. Take, for example, his grudging acceptance of the "incorrect" forms bueni- simo and viejisimo, his admission that al- though clubes would be the "correct" form, 'como hay resistencia a decirlo asi, todo el mundo escribe los clubs, y pronuncia los clus" and, finally, his note to the "correct" forms bisteques and 6mnnibus automdvil (for the proscribed bistecs or bistis and autobuis) which reads laconically and somewhat pathetically "que nadie dice."

In short, this first edition was yet an- other prescriptive dictionary of very dubi- ous value to the speaker and of practically

CONTRASTING APPROACHES TO SPANISH LEXICOGRAPHY 49

no value to the average college student of Spanish. Such works are normally ephem- eral and it is a pity that the matter cannot be left at that. In fact, though, on page 291 of the work, a publisher's note states rather ominously that "un trabajo como el presente es ilimitado" and "Futuras edi- ciones se verin notablemente ampliadas con mis abundantes ejemplos que el len- guaje hablado y escrito nos ofrece cada dia." It is this promise (or threat) that is fulfilled in the second edition eleven years later. However, the original compiler, Santamaria, had died in the meantime and the task of revising the dictionary and updating it was undertaken by A. Cuartas.

With a diligence worthy of a better cause, Cuartas has expanded the 300 pages to 500 mainly by adding items to the dic- tionary itself but also by adding many brief sections like the following: "Breve historia de la Real Academia Espafiola de la len- gua"; "Como se forma el plural de algunas palabras"-why algunas?-; "Como se de- ben denominar las voces de animales" (e.g. "El perro ladra. El buey muge." etc.). The result is a rather strange sort of language compendium. The main objection to many of these extra sections is the arbitrary and undisciplined way in which items are selected. For example, at the end of the book, Cuartas has added a section called "Curiosidades del idioma" where many etymological curiosities and other two-line items of general interest seem to be thrown in for good measure. The

"Aplndice gra- matical" shows the same odd principles of selection (or lack of them) in that it con- tains information on voseo, pronombres procliticos y encliticos and leismo, loismo, laismo-and nothing more!

It is especially sad to see that Cuartas decided to make the RAE his only author- ity on correctness, and so the judgments in the second edition are even more severe than those of the first since usage is not taken into account at all.

The main alphabetical section of the work contains some equally arbitrary items,

some inherited from the first edition but many of them appearing for the first time in this expanded edition. For instance, in addition to the many fairly well-known anglicisms listed (boy scout, fans, hobby, snob, etc.) one is surprised to find land economics, locational aspects and other similar phrases or words whose use in Spanish must be minimal or very spe- cialized. Also, the dictionary lists many common americanismos (boleto, carro, estampilla, saco, etc.) but finds room to warn against the use of specific regional- isms like agencia (Chile) agujador (Chile), dar lata (Venezuela), filipichin (Colombia), repelar (Mexico), calote (Argentina), etc. which can hardly be con- sidered "dangerous" to Peninsular Spanish even by the authors of this work. Indeed, it is doubtful whether most Spaniards have heard or read these items. It is, of course, possible that the inclusion of these terms indicates that the dictionary is meant to correct at one fell swoop the speech and writing habits of Spanish speakers in all Hispanic countries.

In this main section, some 7,500 items are listed and among them is much to interest the wary scholar of contemporary Spanish'" but, because of the excessively prescriptive approach, the summary treat- ment of many complex problems, not to mention numerous typographical errors, methodological inconsistencies, confusing entries"7 and the constant refusal to take usage into account, the value to the general Spanish-speaking public or to the unwary foreign student must be very slight.

The major weakness in the layout of the dictionary is the presentation of all mate- rial in two columns, labelled incorrecciones and formas correctas, which not only ap- pears to ban all extranjerismos, neologisms and even colloquial speech listed in the first column, but, in the case of two syno- nyms, both labelled admitida, often makes the left-hand one appear 'incorrect' in spite of the Academy's apparent acceptance of it! This could easily have been avoided by

50 BRIAN STEEL

labelling one of each pair admitida and the other preferible, (as is done in some cases), or by listing both in the right-hand column.

Because of this two column incorrect/ correct layout, the authors sometimes place in the left-hand column words which are perfectly "correct" by anyone's standards. Thus, el frente and doctor are placed in the 'incorrect' column merely to indicate a difference of meaning or use between them and la frente and medico respectively. Apart from thus giving the wrong impres- sion, this treatment is too superficial since, in the case of doctor/midico, it fails to reveal the contexts where each is normally used.

Brief comments or judgments on words in the left hand column are also misleading at times (e.g. sabe una burrada, labelled disparate lingiiistico, which may be more usefully described by simply labelling it fam.). In other cases, where no label or description is offered at all, as, for example, with tener mucho cuento or cdllate la boca, the simple addition of farm. and vulg. re- spectively would help the reader to under- stand the exact status of these expressions. As examples of inconsistent labelling and of a general lack of thoroughness in the presentation of the material, one could mention the entries sex appeal, sexy and sidecar, labelled anglicismo, ingles and voz inglesa, respectively.

Some of the critical comments are sur- prisingly slipshod for a language work of this kind. For example, we are told that Escucharon ustedes, sefiores . . . for Han oldo ustedes . . . is a "frase correcta, pero de mal estilo"; that the word cancha "es una incorreci6n gramatical" (for 'lexical'); that "los superivit (no tiene plural)"; and even that "las palabras como Xavier, Texas, no deben escribirse con x . . . sino con la jota velar fricativa sorda." (italics mine). Equally surprising is the brief remark on p. 480 that "Laistas lo son Gald6s, Mir6, Azornn, Benavente, Cela, etc."18 Here one assumes that if these authors are indeed

laistas, it is more likely a stylistic gesture in their writings to make the conversation of their characters more realistic rather than a reflection of their own habits in speaking or writing Spanish. If Santamaria and Cuartas had given a few examples (or statistics) from the work of each author or had clarified this statement in some other way we would be less inclined to conclude that they have made an incorrect generali- zation. The danger is, of course, that the inexperienced student may take this and many other statements in the dictionary at face value.

Such shortcomings as have been men- tioned already are bad enough, but in a work meant to guide people's use of lan- guage there are others which may be judged even more serious since they stem from the authors' rigidly purist attitude to words and from their refusal to con- sider the language "as she is spoke" or written. (Indeed, one of the weakest points about this work is the authors' apparent failure to recognize that there are many different registers of language, each appro- priate to a special situation). A comparison of different treatments given to many of the items listed below underlines the basic unsoundness of this dictionary and at the same time it more than vindicates the re- liance of Seco and Moliner on usage and common sense as well as on Academy rul- ings. Among the unsound advice offered to the readers of this dictionary, we find the following:

cairino in preference to cairota (whereas Seco explicitly states that no one uses the former and that cairota must therefore be considered correct);

the obligatory use of "personal a" before names of towns, etc. not pre- ceded by the definite article, as in Tengo el propdsito de visitar a Paris y ver a Londres (Seco: "esta regla es hoy poco usada");

aparte in preference to aparte de (Seco notes that although the Aca-

CONTRASTING APPROACHES TO SPANISH LEXICOGRAPHY 51

demy disapproves of the latter form, it is the more frequently used; Moliner lists only aparte de);

6mnibus automdvil in preference for autobzis (a patently absurd piece of advice, whatever the Academy may have said, but, in any case, autobiis has now been accepted even by that august body);

blandujo in preference to blanduzco (Moliner lists blandujo as an infre- quent variant of blanducho);

Teatro de Coldn, Teatro de Lope de Vega, Calle de Ferndn Coldn, Teatro Lope de Vega, etc. (Seco, in a paragraph devoted to Calle, advises that the omission of de before the name following "es construcci6n que debe evitarse por no responder al uso tradicional de nuestra lengua" but he also admits that the particle is fre- quently omitted);

un espafiol ciento por ciento rather than un espaiiol cien por cien (Seco's comment is that the latter is "de uso muy frecuente"; Moliner lists cien por cien, states that it is "muy usada" but labels it as a "galicismo incor- recta");

sdbado y domingo in preference to fin de seniana (another extraordinary piece of advice since, although one can understand the objection of Seco and others to weekend, there is noth- ing "un-Spanish" in the structure of fin de semana and, in any case, it is firmly established in the language;19

guerrillero in preference to franco- tirador (in spite of the fact that these are not exactly synonyms);20

the familiar plural positive impera- tive forms in -r (entrar, callaros) are outlawed in spite of their common use in colloquial Spanish and, oddly enough, the negative form No jugar, which is not nearly so frequent in Spain, but which should surely be

considered equally "incorrect" by pur- ists, is actually recommended (cf. p. 257);

hincha is listed as incorrect but no alternative is suggested (Seco and Moliner both accept hincha);

the user is told to omit the definite article before Habana (Seco merely notes that whilst this is often done in Spanish America, the article is more usually retained in Peninsular Span- ish; Moliner defines habanero as "de la Habana");

the condemnation of motor Diesel as a solecismo for motor de Diesel ignores completely the trend (espe- cially visible in journalistic and tech- nical Spanish) to form nominal groups from noun plus (adjectivised) noun (cf. cifras record, medidas standard, horas punta, etc.);21

nortecoreano is preferred by the au- thors to norcoreano which seems to be more common in print. (cf. also nor- vietnamita).22

To this already long list of unsound or dubious information should be added those words of foreign origin or inspiration which, although widely accepted in Span- ish, are rejected by the authors in an ap- parently xenophobic attempt to exile all extran erismos. Their case for banning such words would be enormously strength- ened if they offered suitable Spanish alter- natives instead of the long, involved defini- tions to which they are forced to resort. Typical of the words proscribed in this manner are: ballet, beige, esnobismo, ice- berg, marr6n23 and sidecar,"4 all accepted by Seco and Moliner as necessary; arranque eldctrico, boligrafo, chutar, geisha, koli6s and record, which are listed in the Nuevo Pequeiio Larousse Ilustrado (1963 edition).

In fact, the major practical weakness of an excessively rigid criterion for classifying words and phrases as incorrect is probably best revealed by the authors themselves

52 BRIAN STEEL

who often have had to revise their rather harsh judgments in order to conform to new decisions by the Academy. Such re- visions are listed in a thirty-two page Ap- pendix and a good deal of awkward cross- reference work is thus demanded of the user. Moreover, one is left with the rather obvious doubt that, since within a year or two, many of the other judgments may be

in need of revision (in addition to those which have been quoted in these para- graphs) the dictionary is of very little practical use as a reference work.

Let us leave the last words on this recent work to the authors, who on page 302 amply justify our doubts and fears about their methods, presentation and terminol- ogy by giving the following advice:

INCORRECCIONES Mixtificar (barbarismo)

Modisto (neologismo) El modisto (esti tan arraigado que hasta quienes lo saben decir bien, no lo dicen ni escriben, incluso peri6dicos y revistas de solvencia).

IT IS EARNESTLY TO BE HOPED that, with increasing public awareness of diction-

aries of the calibre of those by Seco and Moliner, dangerous amateur publications like the one just described will no longer find either a publisher or a public for a first edition let alone a second or third.

FORMAS CORRECTAS

Embaucar, engafiar. El "Ideol6gico," de Casares, y el Diccionario Manual tienen admitida la palabra mixtificar como acep- table y corriente, con el significado de 'engafiar'; pero no figura en el Diccionario grande de la Academia. Por tanto, mix- tificar es voz incorrecta.

Modista (Academia)

NOTES 'The perennial dissatisfaction, on both sides

of the Atlantic with the coverage of successive editions of the DRAE as well as with alleged errors and other shortcomings can be judged by scanning the following selection of titles of articles and books: F. Rodriguez Marin, De Academiae caecitate; reparos al nuevo Diccionario de la Academia (Madrid, 1887); also by this author is Un millar de voces castizas y bien autorizadas que piden lugar en nuestro ldxico (Madrid, 1920); Ricardo Palma, Dos mil se- tecientas voces que hacen falta en el Diccionario; papeletas lexicogrdficas (Lima, 1903); M. de Toro y Gisbert, Un trou danms le dictionnaire de I'Academie Espagnole, Bulletin Hispanique, 24 (1924), 225-37; G. M. Vergara, Cuatro mil palabras no incluidas en el Diccionario . . .

(Madrid, 1926); Carlos F. McHale, El libro mayor del idioma. Lucubraciones sobre el Dic- cionario oficial de la lengua (Madrid, 1934). (Although some of the gaps and shortcomings signalled by McHale were subsequently filled in the 1956 edition of the DRAE, he was still able to publish a 112-page Fe de erratas del Diccionario oficial in 1958).

2These titles and the bibliographical informa- tion contained in note 1 were taken from H. Seris, Bibliografia de la lingiiistica espafiola (Bo- goti: Instituto Caro y Cuervo, 1964). Biblio- graphical details of the works mentioned are as follows: (a) E. de Huidobro, Santander, 1903 (According to Seris, the third edition, published in 1915 deals with 600 voces y locuciones incor- rectas); (b) R. Franquero Romano, Malaga, 1911; (c) J. B. Selva, Madrid, 1916 (and sub- sequent editions, including one published in Buenos Aires in 1944); (d) R. Monner Sans, Buenos Aires, 1924.

A much fuller bibliography on Spanish lexi- cography is given at the end of Y. Malkiel's penetrating analysis of Distinctive Features in Lexicography. A typological approach to Dic- tionaries exemplified with Spanish in Romance Philology, 12 (1958), 366-99 and 12 (1959), 111-55 (the bibliographical supplement is on pages 137-55).

3A. Capdevila, Consultorio gramatical de ur-

CONTRASTING APPROACHES TO SPANISH LEXICOGRAPHY 53

gencia (Buenos Aires: Losada, 1967); J. Casares, Cosas del lenguaje. Etimologia, lexicologia, semdntica (Madrid, 1943); H. Toscano, Hable- mos del lenguaje (New York: J. B. Powers, 1965).

4J. Casares, Novedades en el Diccionario Aca- demico. (La Academia Espafiola trabaja), 2nd edition. (Madrid: Aguilar, 1965); A. Rosenblat, Buenas y malas palabras en el castellano de Vene- zuela. 2 vols. (Caracas-Madrid: Eds. Edime, 1956-60).

5Barcelona: Eds. Martorell, 1951. 6Modern Language Journal 37 (1953), 58-59. 7Madrid, Aguilar, 1961. The references given

in this study are to the fifth edition, 1967. For those not acquainted with this Diccionario, the following extracts from reviews of the first and subsequent editions may give an indication of the immediate warm welcome extended to this work of reference: J. W. Schweitzer (in His- pania, 45 [1962], 819-20) uses terms like the following: "a new and fresh view of vigorous present-day Spanish," "an almost perfect book in which idiomatic Spanish is the rule rather than the exception," "a must for every Hispanista worthy of the name." R. Sinchez Morifio (in Filologia moderna, nos. 7-8, 1962, p. 160) de- scribes it as "un diccionario que, si es susceptible de sucesivas ampliciones, como es normal en estos casos, es inmejorable en los demais aspectos, dado el rigor cientifico con que ha sido ela- borado." Emilio Lorenzo (in El espaiol de hoy, lengua en ebullicidn (Madrid: Gredos, 1966), p. 129 writes: "Se trata de una de las contri- buciones mais series, documentadas y llenas de intuici6n-con algunos atisbos de desusada saga- cidad-que ha recibido el estudio del espafiol en el presente siglo."

8Seco, op. cit., pp. 4-5. 92 vols. Madrid: Gredos, 1966. 1dIn the opening sentence of her Presentacidn,

Moliner states that the dictionary "constituye un instrumento para guiar en el uso del espafiol tanto a los que lo tienen como idioma propio como a aquellos que lo aprenden y han llegado en el conocimiento de t1 a ese punto en que el diccionario bilingiie puede y debe ser substituido por un diccionario en el propio idioma que se aprende." This recognition of the special needs of non-native speakers can be seen, for example, on pages 264-65 of the first volume, where, among the information given on articulo, there is a whole page devoted to "Observaciones sobre

casos especiales o de dificil determinaci6n para los que no tienen el espafiol como idioma propio."

x"Segunda edici6n. Corregida y aumentada, Madrid: Paraninfo, 1967.

12Madrid: Paraninfo, 1956. 130p. cit., p. lii. 14Op. cit., p. xi. 15Ibid. 160r even to interest future scholars of lan-

guage changes, since as in a modern equivalent of the Appendix Probi, certain features of pro- nunciation are mirrored in some spelling errors corrected by the authors (e.g. espontdneo, not expontdneo; andcdota, not andgdota; golpear, not golpiar; haz caso, not has caso).

17On p. 278, for example, we read: (Incorrect) Lejisimo. (Correct) Lejisimos. (Incorrect) Leiisimos. (Correct) Muy lejos (pre- ferible).

18All the comments listed in this paragraph appear for the first time in the second edition of the dictionary.

x9Fin de semana is in fact recommended in the first edition yet outlawed in the revised edition!

20The refusal to admit the usefulness of nuances of meaning between 'synonyms' also leads the authors to ban abarrotar in favor of the much more general ocupar and llenar.

21These examples are given by E. Lorenzo in El espaiiol de hoy, lengua en ebullicidn (Madrid: Gredos, 1966), pp. 29-30.

22To judge from the pages of The Economist Edicion para America Latina, yet another form, still using the 'prefix' nor-, is preferred in Ameri- can Spanish (norvietnames) possibly due to the influence of English language news agencies.

"3The treatment given to this word shows up once more the unreliability of the purely 'Aca- demic' approach since, after summarily banning this word in the alphabetical list, the authors state among their Curiosidades del idioma (p. 464) that "El galicismo marrdn, tan arraigado, se empefia en desterrar al genuino espafiol castacio."

241t is interesting to compare the treatment of this word by the authors of this work and by Moliner and Seco. The former list it as a voz inglesa and prefer to replace it with a definition; Moliner lists it and Seco, after offering a defini- tion and an

ex._mple of its use in modern Span-

ish, adds that "es un anglicismo ya incorporado a nuestro idioma; se pronuncia a la espafiola, no a la inglesa, y su plural es sidecares."

OFICINA NACIONAL DE CORRESPONDENCIA ESCOLAR Names of Spanish-speaking correspondents are available for a fee of just twenty- five cents per correspondent. To get their students started on so worthwhile an activity, teachers are urged to write to Prof. Cary S. Crantford, Director, ONCE, Dept. of Modern Languages, Furman Univ., Greenville, South Carolina 29613.