ish
Dictionary_ (from the letter H) contain 1002 words, of which, as the
dated quotations show, 585 were current in 1750 (though some, of
course, were very rare, some dialectal, and so on), 191 were obsolete
at that date, and 226 have since come into use. But of the more than
700 words--current or obsolete--which Johnson might thus have
recorded, he actually did record only about 300. Later dictionaries
give more of them, but they in no way show their status at the date in
question. It is worth noting that the figures given seem to indicate
that not very many more words have been added to the vocabulary of the
language during the past 150 years than had been lost by 1750. The
pages selected, however, contain comparatively few recent scientific
terms. A broader comparison would probably show that the gain has been
more than twice as great as the loss.

In the _Deutsches Worterbuch_ of Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm the scientific
spirit, as was said above, first found expression in general
lexicography. The desirability of a complete inventory and investigation
of German words was recognized by Leibnitz and by various 18th-century
scholars, but the plan and methods of the Grimms were the direct product
of the then new scientific philology. Their design, in brief, was to
give an exhaustive account of the words of the literary language (New
High German) from about the end of the 15th century, including their
earlier etymological and later history, with references to important
dialectal words and forms; and to illustrate their use and history
abundantly by quotations. The first volume appeared in 1854. Jacob Grimm
(died 1863) edited the first, second (with his brother, who died in
1859), third and a part of the fourth volumes; the others have been
edited by various distinguished scholars. The scope and methods of this
dictionary have been broadened somewhat as the work has advanced. In
general it may be said that it differs from the _New English Dictionary_
chiefly in its omission of pronunciations and other pedagogic matter;
its irregular treatment of dates; its much less systematic and less
lucid statement of etymologies; its less systematic and less fruitful
use of quotations; and its less convenient and less intelligible
arrangement of material and typography.

These general principles lie also at the foundation of the scholarly
_Dictionnaire de la langue francaise_ of E. Littre, though they are
the