الفهرس 
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 633 |  |  |
| | | from | 633 | | |
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The present study investigates the way Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar (2005) and An-Nafees (2000) provide equivalents for newly adopted foreign terms from English. The study tries to describe and evaluate the ways these dictionaries benefit from Arabic morphology while coining, deriving or creating equivalents for new terms. The ultimate goal is to decide how far the dictionaries under study agree with and capitalize on the rules of morphology in Arabic. The significance of the study stems from its attempt to assess the extent Arab dictionary-makers have capitalized on the repertoire of Arabic morphology to create equivalents for the newly-adopted foreign terms.
Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar provides about 6600 new terms and concepts. Translation is the means employed to provide equivalents for about 4000 terms; about 60%. An-Nafees provides about 940 new terms and concepts. Quantitatively, this is much fewer than new terms and concepts in Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar; less than one sixth. Translation is the main means employed to provide equivalents for about 600 terms; nearly 63%. Quantitatively, Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar provides a more massive treatment of entries, in comparison to An-Nafees. Compared with Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar, An-Nafees provides about a sixth of the entries of Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar. Etymologically, Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar provides etymological information for all of its entries. An-Nafees provides no etymological information. Morphologically, Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar attempts to capitalize on the morphological rules of derivation more than An-Nafees does as the former attempts rendering of more newly-created terms in various specializations. Modified terms in Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar represent 8% of its items compared to 25% of those of An-Nafees. This is ascribed to over-usage of explanatory definitions in An-Nafees. Translation is the superseding means of rendering in both dictionaries (60% in Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar and 63% in An-Nafees). An-Nafees relies on borrowing in fewer cases (14% in Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar and 5% in An-Nafees). In brief, both dictionaries use translation almost equally. Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar uses much fewer explanatory definitions, while An-Nafees uses much fewer Arabicized equivalents. Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar relies on derivation more heavily than An-Nafees does. In conclusion, Al-Mawrid Al-Akbar is lexicographically a better dictionary than An-Nafees is in regard to quantity, etymological information and morphological treatment of entries.