Customer Reviews

Lakota Dictionary: Lakota-English / English-Lakota, New Comprehensive Edition

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

I have been studying and teaching the Lakota language for 8 years now. Until last year, this dictionary was the only comprehensive one out there, so we used it but there were obvious flaws. The pronunciation was not clearly indicated and the verbs, especially, were missing a great deal of important information.
In addition, this dictionary assumed a certain amount of knowledge from the user and therefore is not very user-friendly or clear, especially to the beginner or early intermediate.
The Buechel dictionary is over 50 years old and it is outdated no matter how many new printings it undergoes. Some of the words in it are obsolete, in fact, and are not used by speakers today.
If you wish to buy a Lakota dictionary with sterling example sentences, user-friendly orthographics for pronunciation and complete, up-to-date information on grammar (especially on verbs, which are arguably the most difficult part of the language), I strongly recommend that you consider the "New Lakota Dictionary" by the Lakota Language Consortium (LLC) instead and not waste your hard-earned money on an obsolete, inferior dictionary like Buechel. I know it was considered good for a long time, but that time has passed.
The "New Lakota Dictionary" is so far superior in every way to Buechel that I and my entire class completely changed over our spelling system to match the NLD and I have not touched my Buechel dictionary since buying this one.
The NLD also has an excellent grammar section in the center with clear, concise explanations of various aspects of the Lakota language so, once you have purchased it, you don't need other textbooks for grammar. This one dictionary has it all.
If you truly wish to buy the best Lakota dictionary currently available, I strongly urge you to buy the New Lakota Dictionary and forgo the outdated, more difficult-to-use Buechel dictionary. Why not get the best for your money?
I should mention that I have no ulterior motives at all in recommending the LLC or their dictionary; this is just the truth as I see it from being a long-time student and teacher of the Lakota language.
You deserve the best, so please buy the "New Lakota Dictionary" and forget Buechel!

This is a good dictionary with lots of specific detail and sample sentences under each entry. Includes a pronunciation guide, grammar overview, and both Lakota-English and English-Lakota sections. The English-Lakota section can occasionally be difficult to use because words are grouped under headings (if you want to know the number five, for example, you can't look under "five," you have to look under "numbers." Other than that quirk, this is a great dictionary.

It is hard to believe that the University of Nebraska Press would publish such a bad dictionary. The original edition of Buechel's dictionary had lots of problems of its own. This new edition prepared by Manhart not only does not improve the old problems, but makes them worse and creates new ones.
Manhart ruined the spelling in the original version already, but at least it was possible to read what he typed. In this version the font is so small and the diacritics marking contrasting sounds so similar that it is almost impossible to distinguish them. Plain unaspirated stops (k, p, t) are marked with a superscript dot and aspirated stops (well, some of them) with a superscript diacritic just a tiny bit larger than a dot. No wonder that the editor himself was unable to apply the two diacritics consistently. For instance the p in the word sinkpe 'muskrat' is marked as plain (which is incorrect because it is supposed to be aspirated) while the four derivatives of the word oscillate between plain and aspirated. The "t" in sinte 'tail' is correctly marked as plain but in sintehla 'rattlesnake (rattling tail)' it is unmarked (which in the chosen orthography means aspirated). Such errors are pervasive throughout the dictionary.
The small size of the diacritics and their inconsistent usage make the dictionary completely unreliable because the ability to distinguish plain stops from aspirated is essential to Lakota sound system as they frequently contrast meaning. The spelling is unreliable in other respects as well.
In the original edition most of the example sentences were not translated. This edition provides the translations but they are written in un-idiomatic English and in the most part are incorrect interpretations of the original Lakota sentences. For instance: "Kinyekiyapi wan tima tokel kagapi kin wanyankin na iwacingnuniyan ayuta" - 'He looked upon with wonder and saw how the inside of an airplane was made. (page 132) The better translation should be: "He saw how they were building an airplane inside and marveled at it."
A large percentage of the entries in the original edition of the Buechel dictionary is problematic, words that are incorrectly spelled, inadequately defined or representing words that are not part of the language at all. There was obviously no field work or research done to fix these problems in this new edition. If you want to know more about why the Buechel dictionary is unreliable in many respects, read the introduction to the New Lakota Dictionary where it is all described in much detail. Since the publication of the New Lakota Dictionary the Buechel dictionary can no longer be considered the standard Lakota dictionary or the most comprehensive Lakota dictionary. In fact, it is clear now that it is fundamentally flawed. If you want to have a reliable reference on the language buy the New Lakota Dictionary It is the first dictionary of the language that uses consistent spelling and in which all words were checked with fluent speakers.

I have been studying the Lakhota language for years, as a child and an adult. Unfortunately it has been self study, with the help of resources such as the Buechel dictionary. At one time I was very grateful for the Buechel dictionary, and I do not mean to disrespect the value of Buechel's work. However, it was very frustrating to work with.

I recommend instead the New Lakota Dictionary, which renders all others obsolete! New Lakota Dictionary

The orthography allows learners to "read" the correct pronunciation, and all entries are checked by actual speakers of the language! (You might assume that all dictionaries are, but you would be wrong!) It also includes information on all four Dakota dialects (Yankton-Yanktonai (Western Dakota), and Santee-Sisseton (Eastern Dakota)) by each applicable entry.

The many example sentences, notes on how often words are used and in what way (if they are still common or if they are archaic), and the surprisingly approachable (and long) grammar section also make the New Dictionary an excellent resource for beginners. The Lakota Language Consortium's language forum is another invaluable resource. This forum, and the New Lakota Dictionary, have advance my rate of learning exponentially (and significantly decreased learning frustration!!) With this dictionary I finally feel I can put sentences together with confidence.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, the Lakota Language Consortium is a non-profit organization, so your money actually goes to the revitalization of the Lakhota language when buying the New Lakota Dictionary (I assume it goes towards the Nebraska Press with this one ...)

I feel I should reassure you that I am a real person and am in no way affiliated with the Lakota Language Consortium or the New Lakota Dictionary, other than that I am a big fan. I am not saying this for my own, or anyone else's, gain, but for the sake of the Lakota language.

Trust me, for the sake of the language, support the New Lakota Dictonary! You won't regret it.

I have always used this dictionary and found it good and yet puzzling at places. As a native speaker I recognize most of the words, but some of them aren't correct. I couldn't figure out why. And I liked the older printing because the letters were bigger. They are too small in this printing and it makes it really hard to read. My takoja (granddaughter) recently brought home a new Lakota dictionary. They are using it in high school. I didn't like it at first because it has different spelling, but she has been reading words from it and I recognize a lot of words that my parents used to use and I haven't heard them for a long time. It feels good to hear them again. Now I see that my grandchildren can read this new spelling better than the one in the Buchel dictionary. That is good, because they want to learn the language. So I think the New dictionary is better if you want to learn how to say the words. And I read here that the words were taken from a Dakota dictionary long ago. That explains why I couldn't understand some of the words.

I have had this dictionary for many years and always relied on it. But after seing the New Lakota Dictionary I agree that this one is completely obsolete.

I am a Lakota woman. I am a natural speaker and I speak the language pretty well. I learned it growing up. I grew up on a Lakota "Sioux" reservation. It was spoken in the home. It was the only way my grandmother would communicate with me for a long time. I got this book and some other childrens learning books because I want to teach my neice. She is four years old and hasn't been exposed much to the langauge. I plan to teach her when I go home for the summer, I am a college student. I was hoping that this book would help for the items I forgot but I'm worried about trusting it. I found that the book contradicts its own definitions. For example, I looked up a word in the english section then checked it in the Lakota section and found it to have a completely different definition. This worried me so I checked on words that I know for sure and found the book to have conflicting definitions for some of those as well.

Also, in the back of the book they list THE SIOUX NATION, Seven Council Fires but the way it is listed is innacurate.
It says that under TETON(LAKOTA) there is only Oglala, Sicangu, Mnikowoju.
Under Saones,(Yankton/Nakota) there is Hunkpapa (Unkpapa), Sihasapa(Blackfeet), Itazipco, Yankton, and Yanktonais.
And under Santee(DAKOTA) is Mdewakanton, Wahpeton, Wahpekute, Sisseton. This isn't totally accurate. The Dakota is accurate,

BUT
IT SHOULD BE
Lakota(Teton) = Sicangu (Brule), Minnecanjou, Oglala, Hunkpapa(Uncpapa), Blackfeet, Oahenumpa (Two Kettle), and Itazpo (Sans Arc).
Nakota (Yankon) = Yankton, and Yanktonais
Dakota (Santee) = mdewakanton, Wahpekute, Wahpetan, Sisseton.
{spellings can very a little but the auther put some people in a completely incorrect group.}

I am still giving it three stars because overall it is still pretty accurate (as far as I know, but I haven't had the book for a long time and have only had time so far to flip through it). But, because I am worried about how much I can trust it I will only give it three stars max. Otherwise I would have given it four. I hope you could read the review without getting lost. It's difficult to type and keep track in this tiny window. :D

I feel nostalgic warm feelings toward Buechel's dictionary. I got the first edition of Buechel's 15 years ago and and used it as my main reference book for the Lakota language for many years. Then I learned that Buechel borrowed most of the lexicon and definitions from Riggs Dakota dictionary, simply used it as a starting point, changing all "d" and "md" into "l" and "bl" etc.
It is not easy to learn the language using the "Beegle". Spelling is inconsistent, not all aspirations are shown, not all changeable -A's are shown by examples, the definitions are not always adequate and accurate.

The Second edition is generally a step back. The spelling turned into "traditional" one and trascription enclosed in slashes is even less consistent. Aspirations of [c^h] as opposted to [c^] are altogether dropped this time.
Most word entries don't have examples, the ablaut (changing word-final -a to -e or -iN) can be checked only IF examples are present - unless the examples are incorrect, as it is for "agla, v.coll.pl": 'mis eya wakiyagla na...' - should be actually 'mis eya wakiyagni na..'

For decades this was the only Lakota dictionary of a decent size available and so it was a must-have for the students of the language. But now the New Lakota Dictionary has taken the position of the standard reference dictionary on Lakota. It has all the necessary features of a modern dictionary, reliable spelling based on a standard orthography, conjugations, sentence examples and other things that Buechel's dictionary lacks. The introduction in the new dictionary explains in much detail the history of Lakota lexicography including why the Buechel material is unreliable.

This dictionary is not particiluarly helpful for someone who wants to learn the language. The spelling is inconsistent and doesn't provide help with pronunciation, definitions are often incomplete or inaccurate, no information is provided on ablaut and other features of the words, example sentences and collocations are scarce and their translations inaccurate.

Buechel's dictionary is a typical example of lexicographical work done by the early missionaries among native people; it is a mixture of very careful and very careless work. There is much valuable data in this dictionary, collected by Buechel from fluent speakers, but there is also equally as much, or even more, data that is highly problematic and in fact incorrect. Unless you are a native speaker of the language you won't be able to tell the valuable data from the inaccurate text. During the 20 years of our work on the New Lakota Dictionary (New Lakota Dictionary) over 300 fluent native speaker were involved in checking words from the Buechel dictionary (apart from other sources) and this work revealed that a large percentage of the Buechel dictionary entries are highly problematic, for one reason or another.

Most of the words in this dictionary were actually borrowed from the Dakota dictionary published by Riggs in 1852. The Riggs dictionary contains some 21,000 word entries and Buechel's around 24,000 entries. The two dictionaries overlap in approximately 18,000 entries, and in about 15,500 of them Buechel's definitions are identical to those given by Riggs. Although Dakota and Lakota are very closely related, their significant lexical differences do not always allow Lakota words to be generated by applying Lakota phonetics to Dakota words. This, however, is precisely what Buechel did in a large number of cases.

The Reverend Paul Manhart S.J. who edited the manuscript after Buechel's death, made highly controversial editorial decisions, in particular he changed Buechel's accurate spelling system with a very complex system of diacritical marks. Yet, to make it worse, the conversion was done inconsistently resulting in completely unreliable spelling. In the first edition of the Buechel dictionary, published by the Red Cloud School, the diacritics that Manhart didn't manage to omit were at least legible. In this edition by Nebraska Press they are hardly so and the whole spelling problem is made so much worse.

This Lakota dictionary is unreliable for a number of reasons, some of which are mentioned above. If you want to read more details you can find them in the introduction to the New Lakota Dictionary.

I bought both this one and the new one and I have to agree with the reviewers above who say that the new dictionary is far more reliable, user friendly and comprehensive. If nothing else you will never be able to pronounce the words correctly with this one.