Acceso usuarios
In this paper we propose a new view of the linguistic production of S. Pouvreau, a 17th century French-Basque lexicographer and translator. It was generally believed (see Mitxelena 1961) that his methods were primarily based on the collection of words learnt from oral contemporaneous Labourdin speech and on the study of books which were available to him and which he quoted repeatedly as if they were documental proof. Against this view, we propose that the model of dictionary which Pouvreau represents must be radically reconsidered in the light of several issues: the testimony provided by his translations (which are full of lexical creations); the overall structure of his dictionaries (including MS - C published by Bilbao 1992) as well as the structure of their lexical entries; the analysis of the behaviour of his sources and models (Oudin), and of the ideas explicitly maintained by contemporaries, in particular German ones (cf. Jones 1991).
Several facts lead us to believe that his dictionary is one of �competence� (cf. Hullen 1988 on Schottelius) rather than �of speech� as Mitxelena would term it. The first indication is that there is a very low percentage of quotations from other authors and that such quotations appear under "head words" and not in the many derived ones. Secondly, derived words are placed underneath head words and they are formed with recurring suffixes. In addition, the only thing which Pouvreau explains in the introductory notes to the dictionary is precisely the formation of words. Finally, there is the fact that Mitxelena finds in P not only words which �were� but words which �could have been� -P's is the first documentary source even for many other words which have been since accepted in usage (cf. Sarasola 1984ss)-.
We present evidence which leads one to believe that, not only in the case of P but also in that of other old Basque lexicographers and their contemporary European authors and models, it is grammar, in the sense of system of rules, which plays a fundamental role in language and its description, whilst vocabulary is a product of grammatical rules. Thus, the size, structure and adequacy of the lexicon depends on the nature of the syntactic rules of the language. Only if these rules degenerated would the language do so too (cf. Lakarra 1994a on Harriet and other studies on the lexicographic ideas of the 17th and 18th centuries).
Structure of the paper: § 1. Introduction; § 2. P "honest" lexicographer; § 3. On the abundance and accuracy of the quotations in P; § 3.1. Analysis of the entries under letter D-; § 3.2. Id. under letter F-; § 3.3. Ms C; § 3.4. P's dictionary is not one "de autoridades"; § 4. Lexical renewal in P's texts; § 4.1. Text analysis; § 4.2. Lexical creations in HLEH from P's texts; § 5. Lexical renewal in P's dictionaries; § 5.1. Lexical creations in P's dictionaries; § 5.2, Compound and derived forms under letters A- and B-; § 6. On lexicographers' "sins": § 6.1. Mitxelena on P's sins; § 6.2. On the structure of lexical entries in C MS (and elsewhere); § 6.3. P as Oudins's beneficiary and disciple; § 6.4. On Oudins's lexicographic practice. § 7. Grammars and dictionaries; § 7.1. Notes on derivations in P's introduction to his dictionary; § 7.2. Derivation in the grammars; § 7.3. Derived forms in Nebrija's dictionaries; § 7.4. Id. in P's dictionaries; § 8. From lexicographic practice to grammatical theory: the dictionary as a servant of the grammar; § 9. German and Basque lexicographical traditions; § 10. Conclusions: P's dictionary: a dictionary of competence. § 11. References
