Publication: Fuentes del léxico apícola en el "Diccionario de Autoridades".
Authors
Pena Arango, Daniela
item.page.secondaryauthor
item.page.director
Publisher
Universidad de Murcia, Servicio de Publicaciones
publication.page.editor
publication.page.department
DOI
https://doi.org/10.6018/ril.436181
item.page.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Description
Abstract
En el presente trabajo se recoge
un breve análisis de las autoridades utilizadas para la inclusión y sanción de los términos apícolas en el Diccionario de Autoridades
(1726-1739). Este análisis es seguido de un
comentario más extenso en el que se aborda
la importancia de las fuentes lexicográficas en
la elaboración de este tipo de entradas científico-técnicas. Se subraya la repercusión de
repertorios nacionales de sobra conocidos,
como el Diccionario de Nebrija o el Tesoro de
Covarrubias, pero también de otros menos
comentados, como los diccionarios de Percival (1591), Palet (1604) o Oudin (1607).
In this paper, we present a short analysis regarding the authorities deployed to sanction and include the beekeeping lexicon in the Diccionario de Autoridades (1726- 1739). This analysis is followed by a longer commentary, in which the importance of the lexicographical sources, when it comes to the elaboration of this type of technoscientific entries, is addressed. The results highlight the significance of national repertories, which are very well-known, such as the Nebrija’s or the Covarrubias’ dictionaries, but they also display some works which are no so traceable, such as the dictionaries of Percival (1591), Palet (1604) or Oudin (1607).
In this paper, we present a short analysis regarding the authorities deployed to sanction and include the beekeeping lexicon in the Diccionario de Autoridades (1726- 1739). This analysis is followed by a longer commentary, in which the importance of the lexicographical sources, when it comes to the elaboration of this type of technoscientific entries, is addressed. The results highlight the significance of national repertories, which are very well-known, such as the Nebrija’s or the Covarrubias’ dictionaries, but they also display some works which are no so traceable, such as the dictionaries of Percival (1591), Palet (1604) or Oudin (1607).
publication.page.subject
Citation
Revista de investigación lingüística, Vol. 23 (2020)
item.page.embargo
Collections
Ir a Estadísticas
Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/