Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (7)
- Part of a Book (6)
- Book (1)
- Other (1)
- Review (1)
Language
- German (16)
Has Fulltext
- yes (16)
Keywords
- Grimm, Jacob (16) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (12)
- Peer-Review (1)
Publisher
- Akademie Verlag (4)
- Hirzel (2)
- Niemeyer (2)
- de Gruyter (2)
- Brockhaus/wissensmedia (1)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (1)
- Lang (1)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (1)
- PaoloLoffredo (1)
- Rowohlt (1)
"Wilde Pflanzen ohne nährende Frucht". Der politisch-soziale Wortschatz bei den Brüdern Grimm
(1990)
Jacob Grimm was a very productive member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Berlin. Between 1842 and 1863 he made speeches at least on 66 days of sitting. Grimm was one of the academy’s most active and most famous speakers. Many of his speeches were not only concerned with philological questions. He also confessed his views about other scientific disciplines or problems of public interest. Grimm emphasized the international character of sciences and expressed the high respect he payed to the cultural traditions of other peoples.
Die Brüder Grimm
(1994)
In this article the treatment of the first two volumes of the Grimms' Deutsches Wörterbuch, i.e. volume I (A - Affrikata: revised by the Berlin working group) and volume VI (D: revised by the Göttingen group) are compared.
Section 1 of the article outlines the genesis of the revision of volumes I and VI.
Section 2 summarizes the theoretical concept of the revised edition and its translation into the structure of the dictionary entries. The conceptual principles which were laid down for both groups, i.e. Berlin and Göttingen, as largely binding are briefly outlined. It becomes apparent that especially as far as the delineation of the historical changes in the meaning of the words is concerned, the lexicographical revision is based on the just slightly modified concept of the last working phase of the DWB (=Grimms' German Dictionary) between 1930 and 1960. The macro- and micro-structural differences between the revised edition and its predecessor are outlined.
Section 3, analyzing selected articles on the basis of the common lexicographical denominator sketched in Section 2, details the differences in lexicographical treatment between the two groups.
In Section 4 the most important results of this selective analysis are summarized and evaluated. Some more general problems of historical lexicography are shortly mentioned in the process.