HUNGARIAN LEXICOGRAPHY I

HUNGARIAN LEXICOGRAPHY I

LEXIKOGRÁFIAI FÜZETEK 5. Editorial Board VILMOS BÁRDOSI, ZSUZSANNA FÁBIÁN (editor-in-chief), KÁROLY GERSTNER, TAMÁS MAGAY (series editor), GÁBOR PRÓSZÉKY Advisers LÁSZLÓ ELEKFI, JENŐ KISS, ÁDÁM MAKKAI (USA), ISTVÁN NYOMÁRKAY

HUNGARIAN LEXICOGRAPHY I BILINGUAL DICTIONARIES Edited by ZSUZSANNA FÁBIÁN AKADÉMIAI KIADÓ, BUDAPEST

Published with assistance from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Contributors PÉTER BASSOLA, CSILLA BERNÁTH, MÁRIA DUDÁS, ZSUZSANNA FÁBIÁN, KÁLMÁN FALUBA, KATALIN KUGLER, PETTERI LAIHONEN, TAMÁS MAGAY, SÁNDOR MATICSÁK, LEVENTE NAGY, ISTVÁN NYOMÁRKAY, LORÁND-LEVENTE PÁLFI, PÉTER PÁTROVICS, ÁGNES SUDÁR, DÁVID SZABÓ, ILDIKÓ SZIJJ, ANIKÓ NIKOLETT TÓTH, PÁL UZONYI, MÁRIA ZSILÁK Text revised by PETER SHERWOOD, ERZSÉBET MOLLAY, MARLIES TENTEN, PIROSKA OROSZ, MARIA TERESA ANGELINI, ZSIGMOND KOVÁCS ISBN 978 963 05 9179 9 Published by Akadémiai Kiadó H-1509 Budapest, P.O. Box 245 Member of Wolters Kluwer Group www.akademiaikiado.hu Zsuzsanna Fábián, 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced by any means, or transmitted or translated into machine language without the written permission of the publisher. Printed in Hungary

CONTENTS Preface.................................................. 7 Előszó................................................... 9 Tamás Magay: Bilingual Lexicography in Hungary. Introductory Notes..................................... 11 Tamás Magay: Anglo-Hungarian Lexicography from the Beginnings to the Present Day............................ 13 Pál Uzonyi: Geschichte der deutsch-ungarischen und ungarisch-deutschen allgemeinsprachlichen Lexikographie..... 31 Ágnes Sudár: Historischer Überblick über die Entstehung der Wörterbücher des Sprachenpaares Ungarisch und Niederländisch........................................ 53 Loránd-Levente Pálfi: Lexikographie für Ungarisch und Skandinavisch Eine kurze Übersicht...................... 65 Dávid Szabó: Les dictionnaires hongrois français et français hongrois.................................... 79 Zsuzsanna Fábián: La lessicografia ungherese / italiana.......... 93 Kálmán Faluba Ildikó Szijj: El húngaro y las lenguas de la Península Ibérica: lexicografía bilingüe.................... 109 Levente Nagy: Les dictionnaires bilingues hongrois roumain..... 123 Кaталин Куглер: История русско-венгерских / венгерско-русских и украинско-венгерских / венгерско-украинских словарей..... 133 István Nyomárkay: Die kroatische Lexikographie eine Übersicht.. 145 Péter Pátrovics: Polish Bilingual Lexicography in a Nutshell. Polish Hungarian and Hungarian Polish Bilingual Dictionaries.......................................... 159

Mária Zsilák: Czech Hungarian and Hungarian Czech Dictionaries A Historical Overview..................... 171 Mária Zsilák: Slovak Hungarian and Hungarian Slovak Dictionaries A Historical Overview..................... 179 Mária Dudás: The History of Bulgarian / Hungarian Bilingual Dictionaries.................................. 193 Sándor Maticsák Petteri Laihonen: Milestones in the History of Hungarian / Finnish Bilingual Lexicography............. 199 Sándor Maticsák Anikó Nikolett Tóth: Bilingual Finno-Ugric Dictionaries in Hungary................................ 227 Péter Bassola: Zweisprachige Rektions- und Valenzwörterbücher mit Ungarisch....................... 255 Csilla Bernáth: Zweisprachige landeskundliche Wörterbücher eine neue Serie in der ungarischen Wörterbuchlandschaft..... 280 About the authors....................................... 289

PREFACE This volume in the Lexicográfiai füzetek series edited by the Dictionary Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and published by Akadémiai Kiadó (Budapest) surveys both the history and the current state of bilingual lexicography in Hungary, primarily for a non- Hungarian audience. Such a detailed survey of Hungarian lexicography has not as yet been available in a foreign language, and, in light of globalization trends, the need to give an account of what has so far been achieved and is still to be done in this field cannot be overemphasized. The lexicographical issues are treated in the context of language pairs that include both major and minor modern European languages. Particular attention has been devoted to Finnish, Hungarian s genealogical kin. Among the contributors to this volume are experts both in the theoretical and practical aspects of lexicography academics and researchers, as well as doctoral students. Owing to limitations of space, full bibliographies could not be appended to the dictionaries treated in the various studies, although, where appropriate, reference has been made to T. Magay (Ed.), A magyar szótárirodalom bibliográfiája. A Biblio graphy of Hungarian Dictionaries, second edition (Akadémiai Kiadó, 2011). The studies in this collection aim to give an overall picture of the state of Hungarian foreign language lexicography, both in terms of its achievements and its deficiencies. It will be clear that Hungarian lexicography is deeply embedded in the mainstream of European lexicographical activity. Another striking feature is the relatively large number of bilingual dictionaries covering a diverse range of lexicographical experience and meeting various demands, no doubt a consequence of the 7

linguistic isolation of the Hungarian language. However, it is also the case that lexicography in Hungary appears in some respects to lag behind in fulfilling the tasks set by international lexicography. It is our hope that Hungarian lexicographers will eventually be equal to the challenges of a changing and unifying Europe. Zsuzsanna Fábián 8

ELŐSZÓ Az MTA Szótári Munkabizottsága által gondozott Lexikográfiai füzetek 1 című periodikum 5. (és tervezett 6.) kötetében a magyar szótárírás történetét kívánjuk bemutatni, ezúttal elsősorban a nem magyar anyanyelvű érdeklődőknek. Tudomásunk szerint nagyobb terjedelmű és átfogó idegen nyelvű összefoglalás a magyar lexikográfiáról még nem született; aktualitását pedig elsősorban az adja, hogy a globalizációs trendek által kikényszerített változások felerősödése idején szükségszerű mind a számvetés, mind az előretekintés. Ez az 5. kötet a magyar idegen nyelvű szótárírás történetét és jelenlegi helyzetét vázolja fel. A nyelvpárok az élő európai nyelveket ölelik fel. A magyar nyelvvel fennálló kitüntetett kapcsolata miatt nagyobb teret biztosítottunk a finn, illetve a finnugor kapcsolatoknak. A tanulmányok szerzői mind az elméleti, mind a gyakorlati szótártan művelői, többnyire hazai egyetemeinken működő oktatók és doktoranduszok vagy kutatóintézeti munkatársak. A terjedelmi korlátok miatt a tanulmányokhoz nem tudtunk teljes bibliográfiát csatolni a szótárakról; ilyen irányú érdeklődést elégíthet ki a szintén a Lexikográfiai füzetek sorozatában 2011-ben második, bővített és javított kiadásban A magyar szótárirodalom bibliográfiája címmel megjelent bibliográfiai összefoglalás, melyre a tanulmányok szerzői MAGAY 2011 megjelöléssel hivatkoznak. 1 A Lexikográfiai füzetek eddig megjelent köteteiről a következő méltatások születtek: Kemény Gábor: Lexikográfiai füzetek 1 3. Magyar Nyelv CIV (2008) 4: 488 493; Sermann Eszter: Lexikográfiai füzetek 3. Magyar Terminológia 1. (2008) 2: 209 295; Szathmári István: Lexikográfiai füzetek 3. Magyar Nyelvőr 132 (2008) 4: 495 497; Pálfi Loránd-Levente: Lexikográfiai füzetek 4. EURALEX Newsletter Winter 2009: 490 492. 9

A tanulmányokból kirajzolódik a magyar idegen nyelvű lexikográfia történeti alakulása, az elért eredmények és hiányosságok is. Kitűnik elsősorban szótárírásunk erős beágyazódottsága az európai vonulatokba, érzékelhető továbbá nyelvünk bizonyos elszigeteltsége miatt a szótári munkák viszonylag nagy száma, mely az összes terület lefedésére, a különféle igények kielégítésére irányuló törekvés következménye. Kétségtelen ugyanakkor, hogy a hazai lexikográfia nem mindig tudta maradéktalanul és időben teljesíteni feladatait. Azt pedig a jövő dönti el, hogy be tudjuk-e pótolni eddigi lemaradásainkat, és hogy meg tudunk-e felelni változó korunk kihívásainak. Fábián Zsuzsanna 10

TAMÁS MAGAY Bilingual Lexicography in Hungary Introductory Notes Hungarian word stock first appeared in various printed Latin Hungarian and in some multilingual dictionaries in the 16th and 17th centuries. Among the latter the famous work of the Italian monk Ambrosius Calepinus is of special interest because the 1585 edition of his multilingual dictionary (cf. MAGAY 1963: 91) was the first to add Hungarian entries, together with English ones, to its roster of many languages. Since in the centuries to follow Latin had been the language of communication and study, it was only natural that well down to the end of the 18th century Latin Hungarian and Hungarian Latin dictionaries were the dominant tools of learning. The first full dictionary with Hungarian as the source language was Albert Szenci Molnár s Dictionarium Ungarico Latinum (1604), later recast by F. Pápai-Páriz (1708) and still later by P. Bod (1767). Towards the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries the influence of Latin began to wane in government affairs as well as in intellectual life. Dictionaries of the German language gradually took place of the Latin, their long series having been opened by J. Márton s work of 1799 (cf. GÁLDI 1957, MAGAY 1963). Among the numerous German / Hungarian dictionaries (cf. SÁGI s Bibliography in MAGAY 2011) M. Ballagi [Bloch] s German / Hungarian dictionaries rose to a high lexicographical level in the middle and the second half of the 19th century. In the shadow of a highly developed German / Hungarian lexicography, dictionaries of the other major and minor European languages were relatively late to appear. The first French Hungarian dictionary came out in 1844, the first English Hungarian (torso) in 1860, and the first 11

Italian Hungarian in 1887. In the chapters to follow we shall keep to the chronological order of the appearance of the first full (or fragmented) dictionary of the given language in discussing the more important lexicographical works, treated in their respective languages. 12

TAMÁS MAGAY Anglo-Hungarian Lexicography from the Beginnings to the Present Day Anglo-Hungarian lexicography from the beginnings to Yolland Considerations of space mean we can give only a brief survey of English Hungarian lexicography, with selected items and not a full description of every dictionary. For a detailed bibliography of the period the reader is referred to T. MAGAY, A Bibliography of Hungarian Dictionaries (Lexikográfiai füzetek 1., Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 2004, 2nd updated ed. 2011, henceforth MAGAY 2011). See also MAGAY 1963. The compiler of the first English Hungarian (henceforth E H) Dictionary was Gyula Dallos who published the first instalment of his dictionary in 1860 (DALLOS 1860). However, for reasons unknown he could not continue his work. Close scrutiny of this torso (cf. MAGAY 1963) suggests that had he completed his dictionary, in terms of the number of entry words it would have been the biggest and most complete E H dictionary for a century. Dallos generally gave reliable and accurate Hungarian equivalents clearly set off from other types of information. He laid great stress on pronunciation, correctly indicated, in his own magyarized transcription. The first complete English Hungarian Dictionary was published in 1878, compiled by Ferenc BIZONFY (Franklin-Társulat, Budapest, cf. MAGAY 2011). The entries were divided by means of word class labels. Homographs and the use of transitive and intransitive verbs were duly indicated. Meaning variants were separated by semicolon. The Hungarian equivalents provided were on the whole adequate. An outstanding feature of this dictionary was the relative wealth of idiomatic expressions in- 13

cluding phrasal verbs. It was also Bizonfy who completed the first Hungarian English Dictionary in 1881 (BIZONFY 1881, cf. MAGAY 2011). In the selection of Hungarian headwords Bizonfy seems to have relied on M. Ballagi, an authority on German / Hungarian lexicography of the period (cf. MAGAY 1963). In this volume Bizonfy made great efforts to render the English equivalents more usable by applying guide words, glosses and context words as well as restrictive labels, e.g. under árpa barley; (szempillán) sty, sármány yellowhammer (a bird). He also dealt surprisingly well with two delicate points of syntax, viz. case government, e.g. bánkódni to grieve (at), to repine (at), and the indication of plural (i.e. plural construction) when the Hungarian word is singular, e.g. fehérnép women (plural). Idiomatic expressions and examples were just as abundant in the H E dictionary as in the E H part. With sayings, a literal translation often preceded the equivalent, e.g. bába: sok ~ közt elvész a gyermek (too many midwives are the death of the child), too many cooks spoil the broth. The first and so far the only English-born lexicographer in Hungary was Arthur B. Yolland (1874 1956) who began to teach English at the University of Budapest in 1899 as lector, and became full professor of English in 1914 (cf. MAGAY 1963). Yolland s A Dictionary of the Hungarian and English Languages, First (English Hungarian) Part appeared in 1908 (Yolland 1908, cf. MAGAY 1963 and 2011). The dictionary ran into three editions (the 2nd in 1921 and the 3rd in 1937 with addenda and 20 pages of new words provided by Yolland s assistant Éva Róna). In terms of characters the increase of the size of the dictionary (4,2 million characters) is in itself impressive as compared with Bizonfy s (2,3 million). The entries were arranged on an etymological basis rather than strictly alphabetically, at the expense of easy legibility and accessibility. Headwords were grouped in long, sometimes interminable articles, e.g. all the words beginning with the prefix ante- were entered under the headword ante-, including even antelope (!). Yolland s system of indicating pronunciation was one of the weakest points of his dictionary: in his effort to simplify and magyarize the phonetic transcription, he failed to give the user an adequate guide. But it would be unfair to mention only the negative aspects of his phonetics. Both Dallos and Bizonfy disregarded English diphthongs like [ei] or [ou] which were duly marked by Yolland. 14

Within the various word classes the principal meaning variants were marked by Roman numerals with Hungarian equivalents separated by semicolons and given in italics. Usage notes and guide words, on the other hand, were set in ordinary type, usually in parentheses. E.g. malmsey egy fajta édes bor (eredetileg görög); gall (dörzsölés által okozott) seb (a bőrön); leveller szoczialista (a szó 1647-ből származik); absentee távollevő különösen az, aki mindig távol marad birtokától (vagy hivatalától). Registers were marked sporadically (e.g. orv), regional labels likewise, and only two stylistic labels were used, viz. költői (poetic) and nép (folk). English phrases and idioms were grouped at the end of the semantic unit. A rather confused terminology was used to introduce these groups: szólások (idioms), kifejezések (expressions), összetételek (compounds). Yolland seems to have been aware of the lexicographical importance of phrasal verbs listed under összetételek and elöljárókkal (with prepositions). Yolland s Second (Hungarian English) Part appeared in 1924 in two volumes (YOLLAND 1924). The number of entry words was over 58,000, the number of characters 4,3 million as against Bizonfy s 2,3 million. The dictionary was welcomed by its critics as far as the selection of vocabulary was concerned. Omissions such as balszélső, büntetőpont, cserkész, borotvál, diszkoszvetés, gépfegyver, gyermekorvos, kapus ( goalkeeper ) were not too frequent. Inflected forms were regulary supplied, immediately after the Hungarian headword, thus: haj (-at, -a), ló (lovak, lovat, lova), kéz (kezek, kezet, keze), kér (-te, -t), kevés (keveset), gyáva (gyáván), lelki (-leg) etc. In the treatment of entries a positive development can be witnessed compared to his predecessors: the entry words were printed in bold, although Yolland still retained the by then antiquated method of beginning headwords with a capital letter. Discrimination of meaning variants became more refined. To demonstrate how successfully he handled polysemy, we give two examples. Nyelv (-ek, -et, -e) n I (human) tongue II language; tongue; speech III (fig.) style, language IV tongue (of balance, land, or bell). Megkeres vt I look for; search for; try to find; look up (passage in a book) II call on; visit; look up III apply to; request; desire IV earn (living), make. The English equivalents were on the whole reliable and in good English throughout the dictionary as could be ex- 15

pected from a native lexicographer. The English equivalents in italics were always clearly set off from all other supplementary information. Subject labels and guide words were used far more extensively than in the first part. E.g. Száj n I (anat.) mouth; snout (of pig) II mouth (of vessel); spout (of kettle), bung-hole (of cask), muzzle (of cannon) III (fig.) spokesman; mouthpiece etc; in the treatment of untranslatable Hungarian words, such as Kurucz insurgent (name given to soldiers fighting under Francis Rákóczi and Thököly against the Austrian Imperialists), Palotás a Hungarian dance (a kind of minuet), Rétes a kind of pudding (layers of flour rolled thin) etc. As can be seen, in most cases Yolland tried to give approximate equivalents side by side with the explanations, a method applied right up to the present day. 16 The Országh era (1948 to 1976) It was jokingly said of László Országh (1907 1984) that in the morning he worked on the monolingual dictionary, and in the afternoon on the bilingual. And when asked which of the two was harder defining in the native language or finding target-language equivalents in a foreign language he opted for the latter. For, although the monolingual dictionary (in his case A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára An Explanatory Dictionary of the Hungarian Language, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1959 1962) is said to require a greater amount of scholarship than the bilingual (which is often regarded quite undeservedly as a commercial rather than scholarly undertaking), the latter has an indisputable difficulty as against the monolingual: it has to compare (and contrast) not just two languages but two often widely different cultures and civilizations. In post-1945 Hungary, parallel with a major economic and political transformation, a marked upswing was seen in language learning, especially of western languages, in spite of (or perhaps because of?) the fact that Russian was made compulsory at all levels of education. The urgent need for a new, up-to-date English dictionary was at once felt and was fully satisfied by László Országh s A Concise Dictionary of the English and Hungarian Languages. Part I, English Hungarian (ORSZÁGH 1948, Franklin-Társulat, Budapest), marking a new era in Anglo-Hun-

garian lexicography. In this limited space we can only try to highlight the new features that made Országh s dictionary (and his subsequent dictionaries) strikingly superior to those of his predecessors. An overall merit of Országh s dictionaries was that they were userfriendly. This attitude was reflected first and foremost in his selection of vocabulary. He was fully aware that a dictionary can never be complete or all-inclusive of the living, ever-growing and ever-changing language. In a letter to his publisher Országh wrote: Generally I have recorded the more important words of the past 10 to 15 years, among others, the new words relating to war and peace, technology, politics, economics etc. These words were: air-conditioning, atomic fission, electronics, income brackets, jeep, jet-plane, nylon, plastics, radar, walkie-talkie etc. And what followed in the new editions, viz. the idea of constant and regular updating, was, so to speak, a passion of Országh s all through his general editorship. In the arrangement of headwords Országh was compelled to cram as much material into as little space as possible. He improved on Yolland s etymologizing system by, for instance, using bold-face headwords, and the caesura to show the stems to which endings and suffixes were added. Still, sometimes it was difficult for the user to find links: for example, handily and handiness were not entered under handy, as might have been expected, but in a lengthy article headed by hand. The necessity of condensing the lexical material had a rather adverse effect on the layout of entries. Meanings and shades of meaning were separated only by a comma, instead of numbers. When we find a chain of equivalents such as these under shift: (hely)változ(tat) ás, (fel)váltás, felváltó munkáscsoport, munkaidőegység, munkatartam, műszak, turnus, női ing/alsóruha, ürügy, fortély, megoldás, váltógazdaság, hirtelen lenyúlás hegedű nyakáról hasára, we cannot but agree with one of his critics who noted: Any but the most experienced English translator will obviously need some guidance in selecting from this list the correct form for any given context. (N. Horton SMITH, Eras mus III/1949/332 333). The 3rd, revised edition (Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1957) improved significantly on this by introducing the numbering of senses (or meanings). Thus, under shift we find: 1. változtatás (helyé/jellegé), (fel)váltás 2. váltakozás, forgandóság 3. felváltó munka csoport 4. munkaidő-egység, műszak, turnus 5. ürügy, 17

fortély, csel, ravaszság 6. vetésforgó egysége 7. ujjváltás (hangszeren) 8. női ing/alsóruha 9. / various phrases/ These shortcomings of the first edition were outweighed by the high quality of Hungarian equivalents, undoubtedly the acid test of a bilingual dictionary. Országh s main achievement was to supply both semantically and stylistically adequate and reliable (translation) equivalents that can be substituted in running texts of the target language. Phrases and idioms (i.e. fixed expressions) as well as examples were plentiful (some 20,000), and there was a fair number of phrasal verbs, a relatively new feature in Anglo- Hungarian lexicography; in fact, this label was not yet widely used at this time (cf. KENNEDY 1920). Országh was very sensitive to a major problem of bilingual lexico graphy, viz. untranslatable words or culture-bound elements. He offered accurate explanations, e.g. morris-dance jelmezes drámai tánc szabadban, or mortar-board egyetemi viselethez tartozó négyszögletű kalap. In later editions such items were put in angled brackets. By way of experiment, in the 1957 edition Országh introduced pictorial illustrations for some English words lacking a Hungarian equivalent, for example for mortar-board. Last but not least, another of Országh s merits was the introduction of the IPA system of phonetic transcription to indicate the pronunciation of English headwords. Internationally Országh was among the first to employ the IPA system in bilingual dictionaries and, more generally, in teaching English at schools. In conclusion yet another feature of this dictionary deserves to be mentioned. Országh was decades ahead of his time in realizing the difference between the dual character of bilingual dictionaries, namely the difference between a dictionary of comprehension and of production. Especially in L1-to-L2 direction he went to great lengths to differentiate the various stylistic values and registers through the judicious selection of usage labels and indicators to help the Hungarian user find the best possible equivalent when translating into English. The 1981 edition of Országh s A Concise English Hungarian Dictionary (Akadémiai Kiadó) was the first major revision of the original 1948 and the revised 1957 editions in co-authorship with T. Magay. This edition was co-published by Oxford University Press in 1990. The arrangement of headwords and the layout of entries remained structurally unchanged as compared with the 1957 edition, mentioned above. The 18

strength of this edition was the replacement of a lot of dead wood by a large number of new words and expressions. Thus, the total number of headwords rose to some 40,000 and that of fixed expressions and examples to over 20,000. A step forward in pronunciation was the replacement of four phonetic symbols with new ones, viz. [ :], [ ], [ ] and [ ]. And another new element was that American pronunciation when different from the British was shown systematically throughout, e.g. under clerk, either, clock etc. The trilogy It is unnecessary to go into details about the situation after World War II; this is by now history. In the so-called socialist period, among other institutions and businesses, it was publishers above all that fell victim to collectivization. Thus, Akadémiai Kiadó, publisher for the transformed Hungarian Academy of Sciences, took over the monopoly of editing and publishing dictionaries, under the chief editorship of distinguished professors of the respective languages. For some 40 years monolingual dictionaries were compiled under the auspices of the linguistic department of the Academy, while bilingual and specialist (terminological) dictionaries were produced in the dictionary department of Akadémiai Kiadó. The Publisher developed the idea of the trilogy of dictionaries in various languages, viz. pocket, concise (medium size) and comprehensive (unabridged) bilingual dictionaries. The counterpart of Országh s 1948 Concise: A Hungarian English Dictionary, considerably enlarged, came out in 1953 (ORSZÁGH 1953), shortly followed by A Concise Hungarian English Dictionary in 1955. The Pocket Dictionaries series of Akadémiai Kiadó started with the English / Hungarian volumes, and were extremely popular especially with schools and beginners. It must be noted here that the 1953 Hungarian English Dictionary was re-edited and published in 1963 with a substantial increase in the number of headwords (from 88,000 entry words to 122,000 in the new edition). There were also significantly more phrases, idioms and examples. The source of new linguistic material was the Explanatory Dictionary of the Hungarian Language, also edited by Országh (see above). 19

Perhaps the most important, indeed a monumental, undertaking by the English dictionary staff of Akadémiai Kiadó, produced with the assistance of such outstanding philologists as Kálmán Ruttkay, was the unabridged English Hungarian Dictionary of 1960 (ORSZÁGH 1960), marking, as it were, the zenith of Országh s lexicographical oeuvre. Space limitations mean we must content ourselves here with giving its chief parameters and a brief description. (For a detailed analysis, see MAGAY 1979). It contained 2,333 pp, 110,000 headwords, over 150,000 fixed expressions and examples, its overall size being 17,4 million characters. Briefly: headwords were arranged on a practical basis, i.e. alphabetically, rather than etymologically. Inconsistencies in the treatment of compounds were found occasionally regarding spelling, namely in whether they were given as one word or two, or hyphenated. This inconsistency was largely eliminated in the 1976 revised edition. As for pronunciation a new symbol [ɔ] was introduced. However, the sounds a as in bar [a:] and i as in fish [i] remained unchanged. A new feature was the marking of secondary stress in polysyllabic words such as methodology [ meθə dɔləʤi]. In discriminating meanings and shades of meaning Országh employed context words and indicators in parentheses as well as a detailed and consistent labelling system (stylistic, regional and subject labels). The encyclopaedic character of the dictionary is evident in that the Latin taxonomic names of plants and animals is also supplied, e.g. daffodil növ nárcisz (Narcissus), fox áll róka (Vulpes vulpes). A generous selection of phrases and idioms, or, more generally, fixed expressions were included, together with a fair number of phrasal verbs whose importance in Anglo-Hungarian lexicography Országh was the first to recognize and emphasize. To the idioms were added many example sentences in order to illustrate the meaning(s) and use of words or phrases in a living context. The major revision of 1976 added further new material from the ever-changing and ever-expanding vocabulary of English, especially many specialist terms and expressions. Both comprehensive dictionaries, known as the big Országhs, and all the smaller ones (pocket and concise) ran into several editions or to be more accurate impressions. All in all, the dictionary project proved a lucrative business for the publisher. 20

From general to special With the spread of tourism a need was felt and soon met by a series of tourist dictionaries (published by Akadémiai Kiadó), which remained in print for some 25 years. Later a Langenscheidts Sprachführer was adapted for Hungarian users (Grimm Publishers, Szeged, 1995). Another type of dictionary also became very popular: the pictorial dictionary (Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest OUP, Oxford, 1994, cf. MAGAY 2011), an adaptation of the Duden series, viz. Oxford Duden Pictorial Dictionary. Dictionaries of idioms go back to the l930s in Hungary (E. Kundt, cf. MAGAY 2011). Later, T. Magay s 5000 English and American Idioms was reprinted 9 times (Akadémiai Kiadó, 1966 1993), and two major collections of idioms were published by Gy. Nagy: English Hungarian Dictionary of Idioms (NAGY 1996) and T. Magay: A Dictionary of English and American Idioms in Hungarian (MAGAY 1999). The latter was the basis for T. Magay s English Hungarian Idioms (MAGAY 2009, also from Akadémiai Kiadó) with a virtual workbook attached. Dictionaries of slang were published by two outstanding academics, the late László T. András and Zoltán Kövecses. The Hungarian English volume came out in 1989 (ANDRÁS KÖVECSES 1989), supervised by P. Medgyes and the English Hungarian in 1991 (ANDRÁS KÖVECSES 1991, both published by Maecenas, and the 2nd ed. in 1994 by Eötvös Publishers, Budapest). The latter volume was supervised by S. Rot. The H E volume contained 6,000, the E H 10,000 entries. Terminological dictionaries A tradition of terminological dictionaries in various languages begun by Akadémiai Kiadó since 1951 was crowned by the great two-volume English Hungarian Dictionary of Technology and Science (1993, 2003). It contained more than 300,000 entries covering 80 subject fields, with over 350,000 Hungarian equivalents in 1670 pp. It was published with a CD-ROM. The editor-in-chief was T. Magay, the editors: L. Kiss, K. Tardos et al. 21