الفهرس 
Chapter One: IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 613 |  |  |
| | | from | 613 | | |
Abstract
The present study investigates the way Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar (2005) and An-Nafees (2000) provide equivalents for newly adopted foreign terms from English. The study tries to describe and evaluate the ways these dictionaries benefit from Arabic morphology while coining, deriving or creating equivalents for new terms. The ultimate goal is to decide how far the dictionaries under study agree with and capitalize on the rules of morphology in Arabic. Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar provides about 6600 new terms and concepts. Translation is the means employed to provide equivalents for about 4000 terms; about 60%. The morphologically problematic equivalents are mainly those rendered by borrowing. This borrowing is necessary in cases that apply to about 660 terms; 10%. The morphologically objectionable equivalents include those unnecessarily Arabicized. They are about 250 equivalents; nearly 3.80%. Other terms are rendered into long explanatory definitions, instead of laconic and distinct ones. They, too, do not avail of the means of derivation. They are modified within their respective sections. The total equivalents modified by the study are about 540 terms; approx. 8%. All in all, Al- Mawrid Al-Akbar acceptably, sometimes typically, handles newly-adopted terms and concepts. It has availed of the various morphological tools in Arabic to produce equivalents for relatively newly-adopted concepts, especially in scientific realms. It has ’’typically’’ availed of the morphological rules in Arabic permitting the formation of artificial root nouns, tool nouns, verbal nouns, negative prefix adjectives and diminutives. Frequency and manner roots, meem-root, time and place nouns, object and comparative nouns, diminution and acronyms are not employed for deriving many new terms; only 87 representing 1.3% of the total terms introduced. More terms on these patterns should be coined to denote newly –adopted nouns or concepts. Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar has availed of the morphological rule of attribution to produce new modified nouns referring to persons having something to do with the noun stated as in SaHafyy for ’journalist’. Modified nouns in their feminine form are successfully or acceptably produced to coin new Arabic words for newly adopted concepts. Compact equivalents that fully agree with the rules of Arabic morphology are produced. About 110 new negative-prefix adjectives are derived by Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar in agreement with Arabic morphology. It has successfully availed of the morphological ii rule permitting the addition of la ’the negative prefix’ to adjectives and new words in modern Arabic. This usage of the negative prefix in Arabic makes it easier to produce myriads of morphologically acceptable equivalents for new concepts. Al-Mawrid Al- Akbar has provided equivalents for many newly–adopted verbs, though about 63 are modified; nearly 20%. It has availed of the rules permitting the formation of 30 new words denoting the diminutive; nearly 0.45% of its new terms. Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar has availed of the means of blending for creating 144 new terms, but the acceptable blendings are only those produced out of necessity, the ones fitting Arabic morphology, the phonologically plausible, and the self-descriptive or clear terms too. About 115; nearly 80%, are modified. Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar has employed acronyms to provide only one equivalent. It provides about 657 necessarily Arabicized equivalents; nearly 10% and about 252 unnecessarily Arabicized equivalents; nearly 3.80%. An-Nafees provides about 940 new terms and concepts. Quantitatively, this is much fewer than new terms and concepts in Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar; less than one sixth. Translation is the main means employed to provide equivalents for about 600 terms; nearly 63%. Borrowing is applied to about 26 terms; only 2.75%. The unnecessarily Arabicized terms are about 24 equivalents; only 2.55%. The equivalents modified by the study are about 230 terms; nearly 24.5%. An-Nafees heavily draws on translation for providing equivalents; almost 63% of its terms. Derivation is used to produce about 240 equivalents for the artificial root, the meem-root, and verb-derived roots, tool nouns, agents, likened adjective, the comparative noun, nouns of time, nouns of place, nouns of frequency, object nouns, comparative nouns, blending, diminution, and acronyms; only 25% of total terms. About 50 of these terms are modified by the study; about 20%. These are too few entries to claim that An-Nafees fully avails of derivation means; more entries rendered using borrowing, explanatory definitions, or long translation equivalents should rely on derivation. Nouns of frequency, blending, diminution, and acronyms are not used at all. An- Nafees usually provides explanatory definitions; not compact equivalents for verbs, adjectives and translated items; about 200. These terms are modified by the study. They represent more than one fifth of entries. The artificial root is the means used to render only 30 terms denoting new concepts and ideologies. The modified noun means of attribution had better be employed to iii come up with more compact and distinct equivalents for the same equivalents denoting the doer of an action. However, they are too few entries to claim that An- Nafees fully avails of this means; more entries rendered using borrowing, for instance, or indistinct translation equivalents should be cast in this pattern. An-Nafees does not provide compact and laconic equivalents for verbs; it does not capitalize on the potentials of Arabic morphology to derive verbs. These equivalents are explanatory definitions that should have been rendered into compact and short equivalents. It does not capitalize on the means of derivation to produce more compact, semantically distinct and morphologically acceptable equivalents. Translation equivalents are used in most of the remaining equivalents for verbs; not creatively derived ones. Adjectives handled by An-Nafees are rendered, in most cases, into translation equivalents. An-Nafees does not capitalize on the means of derivation to produce more compact, semantically distinct and morphologically acceptable equivalents. An-Nafees has not capitalized on the morphological rule that permits using la ’not’, a negative prefix in Arabic. It has not availed of the rules permitting the formation of new words denoting the diminutive. An-Nafees borrowed about 26 equivalents out of sheer necessity and unnecessarily Arabicized 24 equivalents for the terms that could have been rendered into Arabic without resorting to the ’’morphologically–resistant” Arabicized equivalents. They are modified by the study. Quantitatively, Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar provides a more massive treatment of entries, in comparison to An-Nafees. Compared with Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar, An-Nafees provides about a sixth of the entries of Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar. Etymologically, Al- Mawrid Al-Akbar provides etymological information for all of its entries. An-Nafees provides no etymological information. This is why the new concepts are decided according to Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar. Morphologically, Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar attempts to capitalize on the morphological rules of derivation more than An-Nafees does as the former attempts rendering of more newly-created terms in various specializations. Modified terms in Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar represent 8% of its items compared to 25% of those of An-Nafees. This is ascribed to over-usage of explanatory definitions in An- Nafees. Translation is the superseding means of rendering in both dictionaries (60% in Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar and 63% in An-Nafees). An-Nafees relies on borrowing, both necessary and unnecessary, in fewer cases (14% in Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar and 5% in An-Nafees) and provides ’’Egyptian-flavored’’ equivalents; sometimes purely iv colloquial. In brief, both dictionaries use translation almost equally. Al-Mawrid Al- Akbar uses much fewer explanatory definitions, while An-Nafees uses much fewer Arabicized equivalents. Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar relies on derivation more heavily than An-Nafees does. In conclusion, Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar is lexicographically a better dictionary than An-Nafees is in regard to quantity, etymological information and morphological treatment of entries.