Historiographia Linguistica - Online First

Is the vocabulary appended to a late copy of the Franciscan missionary Andrés de Olmos’ grammar of Nauatl from 1547 an addendum produced by the same author, thus constituting the earliest known lexicographic work of colonial America? By reviewing the debate surrounding this vocabulary found in the so-called Fischer (Tulane, or TULAL) manuscript and examining it using new insights into dictionary-making in the early modern world, I argue that it postdates the 1540s. In contrast to the assumption that the Fischer vocabulary was a source for the famous Spanish-to-Nauatl dictionary from 1555 by the Franciscan missionary Alonso de Molina, I demonstrate that the author of the vocabulary employed Molina’s later dictionaries from 1571 as its main lexicographic sources. The potential relation to Molina’s early dictionary is also examined and similarly indicates that the Fischer vocabulary was copied from Molina rather than vice versa, although the vocabulary may have been composed at different times.

This article discusses four 19th-century textbooks for teaching Egyptian Arabic to foreigners: Nolden’s Vocabulaire français arabe ( 1844 ), Zenker’s Vocabulaire phraséologique français-arabe ( 1854 , published under the pseudonym Barthélémy), Sacroug’s The Egyptian Travelling Interpreter ( 1874 ) and De Vaujany & Radouan’s Vocabulaire français-arabe (1887) . These books display remarkable similarities. They contain, among other subjects, a vocabulary, a grammar, useful Arabic phrases and Egyptian weights and measures. Zenker, Sacroug and De Vaujany & Radouan copied extensively from Nolden’s book without referring to the original source. However, these three textbooks are not exact copies (or, in the case of Sacroug, not an exact translation) of Nolden’s book: although the authors took Nolden’s Vocabulaire as their basis, they also considerably reworked it and added extra materials. In this paper, the contents of the four textbooks are compared in order to determine how the authors treated Nolden’s work, what they added and how they improved it.