Re: Reference Dictionaries (Was: [edict-jmdict] About entries containing "with negative")

["Zarlan ." <zarlan@********>]

I'd just like to note my approval for separating this particular issue, as a different topic. It is a bit of a tangent, after all.
I'd appreciate a response on the original topic, as well, however.

On to my response:
The 新和英大辞典第５版 is the ５版, the fifth edition, of the dictionary. 
The updates you speak of, are to the online version. Not the fifth edition. (and not, in fact, from what I can tell, just the 新和英大辞典, but also the E-J version ...and then some)
The fifth edition (GG5) _is_ perfectly static.

As it is a separate entity, if you cite from the website version you should not refer to it as GG5 or 新和英大辞典第５版, but as KOD or Kenkyusha Online Dictionary ...or 研究社オンライン・ディクショナリー.

>The Kenkysha 新英和大辞典 does indeed give 尻 as a translation of "hip".
>In matching those two terms it's not alone, both the 新和英中辞典 and
>ルミナス和英辞典 give "hips" as translations of 尻, and the 大辞林 entry
>for ヒップ gives 尻 as its primary meaning (it adds "また、その寸法").

...which only goes to further prove my point. (Kenkyusha's translation of 尻, though, is quite accurate, but...)
Even professional dictionaries have errors.
Quite notably in certain topics, where they have no input from people who know anything about that area in particular
...but here, there is a clear mistranslation of something as basic as "hip".
So clear and fundamental an error, that I would not expect to see it's like in any dictionary
...outside of bilingual dictionaries involving a rare/niche language ...or Japanese, which has a long history of terrible "translations", and even now having "English" school textbooks, that are more wasei-eigo than actual English.

That is not to say that one shouldn't look at other dictionaries, or that Kenkyusha's J-E and E-J dictionaries aren't the best J-E/E-J dictionaries out there, but...
One should be aware that all dictionaries have their limitations, and that they are far from infallible.
Also, even a perfect dictionary (not that such a thing exists, or is possible), would still be limited, simply by the fact that dictionaries are meant to merely give a brief and certainly not exhaustive, description ...but that's an issue that is beyond the scope of this discussion, I think.

How is the term used? This is what a dictionary is supposed to answer.
If the dictionary contradicts actual usage, then the dictionary is wrong.
This must always be kept in mind.

/Alan

<-----Ursprungligt Meddelande----->

From: Jim Breen jimbreen@********* [edict-jmdict] [edict-jmdict@***************] Sent: 14/9/2019 3:56:57 AM To: edict-jmdict@yahoogroups.com Subject: Reference Dictionaries (Was: [edict-jmdict] About entries containing "with negative")  ?   A couple of reference-dictionary-related matters: On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 21:11, 'Zarlan .' zarlan@spray.se [edict-jmdict] <edict-jmdict@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > Rene referred to GG5 (Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary fifth edition, 2003. Quite old, > I'd say), as the "bible", when it comes to Japanese-English Dictionaries ...but that is mainly due to the > fact that there is no competition (or can anyone point to a J-E dictionary of a similar size?), and either > way, they are not infallible. The ???????5? is not actually static. Kenkyusha updates it, mainly to remove errors and improve the wordings. I've been able to get them to remove a couple of ????s and I've noticed other changes. They also have a series of additional entries and sub-entries on their "KOD" website, which they label "KOD????". > Just look at this clear example of an obvious error, in its sister > publication (Kenkyusha's New English-Japanese Dictionary sixth edition, 2002) > "hip1 /hi�p/? > n. > 1a ?�????????????????????????, ??�????????; ?body ??�; ?, ???." > Now I think it is safe to assume that we all know that the English word > "hip" (in the sense of the part of the body), doesn't refer to ? (Shiri. Butt. Arse. Rump. Buttocks). > ?? isn't wrong, to be fair, but all the rest is just plain absurd. > Even the more explanatory bit, still manages to be totally wrong (the bit about > it being exclusive to mammals, being the most wrong and inexplicable part of the > whole entry) The Kenkysha ?????? does indeed give ? as a translation of "hip". In matching those two terms it's not alone, both the ?????? and ???????? give "hips" as translations of ?, and the ??? entry for ??? gives ? as its primary meaning (it adds "???????"). Cheers Jim -- Jim Breen Adjunct Snr Research Fellow, Japanese Studies Centre, Monash University http://www.jimbreen.org/ http://nihongo.monash.edu/