I. Proudfoot
Concordances and classical Malay

In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 147 (1991), no: 1, Leiden, 74-95

This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl

I. PROUDFOOT

CONCORDANCES AND CLASSICAL MALAY

A concordance is a particular way of displaying the form of a text. It is
'any arrangement of the words in a text in which the occurrences of the
words are alphabetized (or ordered according to some principle) and in
which some of the environment of the word is presented along with each
occurrence' (Smith 1969: xxi). An index, on the other hand, gives a
selective guide to significant information in the text. The index is a com-
panion to the text, a commentary on the text. The concordance is not
interpretive in this sense. It rearranges the surface form of the text, pro-
viding a basis upon which some interpretation can be more conveniently
built.

Compiling a concordance is not an intellectual activity. It is a task of
immense clerical drudgery. The great obstacle to concordance-making
had always been the prodigious amount of tedious labour it required. The
first biblical concordance, of the Vulgate, was made in the thirteenth
century by a team of 500 clerics. Without such resources, the making of
a concordance could be the life-work of an individual. It would consume
thousands of hours of the time of pettifogging scholars and the volunteers
they employed to transcribe words and contexts on to slips of paper for later
indexing and sorting. Understandably, under such circumstances, concord-
ance-making was restricted to texts of the greatest cultural significance.

The advent of the electronic computer has therefore been a boon to the
would-be concordance-maker. It is easy enough to instruct the electronic
computer to act as a clerical drudge, and it wil1 do so accurately, swiftly,
and tirelessly. While computer concordance-making has been feasible for
the last 30 years', recent developments have made the technology widely
accessible. Two software packages, one developed by Oxford University,
the other by Brigham Young University, now put basic concordance-
making in the hands of microcomputer users (Micro-OCP 1987, Word-
Cruncher 1989). This makes computer time effectively free. Additionally,

1 The first computer-generated concordances appeared in 1957. Fora  hair-raising descrip-
tion of concordance-making on the punch-carded valve-driven Univac of that day, see
Parrish 1962.

I. PROUDFOOT is a lecturer in Asian History at the Australian National University, where
he also obtained his Ph.D. Previous publications include Ahimsü and a Mahübhürata story,
Canberra, 1987, and 'A formative period in Malay book publishing', Journal of the Malaysian
Brunch of the Royal Asiatic Society 59, 1986. Dr. Proudfoot may be contacted at the Faculty
of Asian Studies, Australian National University, P.O. Box 4, Canberra 2601, ACT, Australia.

Concordances and Classical Malay 7 5

the tiresome task of preparing the text upon which the concordance will
be based has been greatly lightened by the advent of the optica1 character
reader. Initial data entry may no longer be necessary. Checking and
editing, though, remain burdensome enough.

Ironically, the readiness with which concordances can be made today
has not brought unalloyed joy to practitioners of the art. Indeed it is the
cause of some anguish. Already in 1970, Bessinger was worrying: 'Since
today's computers are so unwontedly powerful and can perform routine
operations so much faster than human beings can, they may save scholars
vast amounts of physical labour and perhaps even a little intellectual
labour. The only real question is, can this power of theirs be used econ-
omically? Can we afford it?' (Cameron et al. 1970: 4-5).

It is now worthwhile concording a text with appeal to a limited scholarly
audience. Has the currency thereby been debased? If it is now possible to
generate massive output on demand, how is this to be published? To keep
concordances to manageable size, should they be made selective? To do
so ignores the power of the new technology. It might have been unbearably
tedious fora clerk to concord 'and' in the English Bible, but for a computer
the task is trivial; indeed it is more troublesome to exclude 'and' from the
concordance than to include it. But even a selective concordance is vol-
uminous. If its appeal is to a smal1 specialist audience, who wil1 publish
it? If it is not published, the making of the concordance was not useful.
Although the computer has also reduced the costs of preparing the printed
edition, the print medium remains expensive. Is the answer to publish not
in print, but in microfilm, or to record the results digitally, on disk or tape,
for (re-)retrieval by computer?

The problem is a misapplication of technology. The computer is being
used to treat the text as a clerk would. This is no surprise, for the first
applications of new technology are almost always solutions to old prob-
lems. For concordance-making, the immediate result is a bottleneck when
it comes to storing and physically reproducing torrents of clerical output.
Using the super-clerk this way fails to take proper account of its speed and
cheapness.

A better approach has been applied in the field of bibliography. An early
use of the computer in bibliography was the listing of titles in the KWIC
style. The KWIC ('key word in context') index is a modified concordance
of titles using only predetermined key words. Indexes of this kind will be
familiar to readers of this article from Dissertation Abstracts International,
or (in attenuated form) from the subject index of the Social Sciences
Citation Index. These bibliographical tools assumed ever greater bulk, until
their recent replacement with data-base searches on-line or on CD-ROM
disks. This solves the problem of publishing voluminous concordance
output. Information is produced only on demand to satisfy specific inqui-
ries. But this new approach is notjust a cheaper way of publishing prepared
output. As information is gathered anew for each inquiry, both the ele-

ments of the inquiry and the display of results can be tailored to specific
needs. It is no longer necessary to compromise with one organizing prin-
ciple - say, the alphabetic listing of key words - which is judged most
likely to satisfy the average user.

Library card catalogues, which allowed only a few points of entry to the
collection, have gone the Same way. The catalogue card is fast yielding to
the on-line database.

The day of the concordance printed in book form will, also, soon be past.
When a text can be searched and the results tabulated almost instantane-
ously, it is no longer rational to preserve the results of one simple search
in print or any other medium. The future lies with interactive investigation
of the text with specific needs in mind: perhaps to list al1 contexts in which
a word occurs, but also to list collocations of a word with others, or
conjunctions of a word with other features of the vocabulary and syntax
of the text, or the distribution of a word within the text, etc. The concord-
ante may be a 'general-purpose working tool for the study of literature'
(Howard-Hill 1979: 4), but who wil1 use a bus when a taxi is on hand?
Already one micro-computer program, WordCruncher, wil1 run complex
searches on text and generate elementary statistica1 information inter-
actively.

So, for the time being, we are briefly in the lurch between an old clerical
tradition and a new age of interactive text analysis. Until more powerful
techniques for interactive text analysis become widely accessible, and
likely users more comfortable with it, the printed concordance still has a
role.

Uses of printed concordances
While the limitations of the traditional concordance must be appreciated,
it is easy to be too dismissive of the contribution it can make to a field like
Malay studies. It may be a defective tool, and one whose day wil1 soon have
passed, but just now it has much to offer.

The main uses of the concordance flow from the principle adopted for
the arrangement of its entries, under key words. Because the words of the
text are also units of sense, the concordance can be used for an index, albeit
an unreflective and indiscriminate one. It is a poor substitute for an
analytical index, but the conjunction of words and contexts at least allows
the user to import a little of the indexer's analytical judgement. In practice,
it has been as a comprehensive index of words that the concordance has
been most used and most valued. Biblical concordances, the earliest and
most used, have especially had this role.

The presentation of words in context makes the concordance particu-
larly wel1 adapted to the study of the meaning of words. Indeed a major
step towards systematic philology is the compilation of a concordance.
This has been true of Biblical and classical scholarship in the West,
Quranic scholarship in the Islamic world, and Vedic (and now Epic)

Concordances and Classica1 Malay 7 7

scholarship in India. The world's great historical dictionaries have been
built up from slips or cards recording apparently important words in
context in dated sources. The raw materials of such a dictionary thus
resemble nothing so closely as an array of concordances (though the
dictionary slips are gathered selectively and may record a wider context
than is warranted in a concordance). Conversely, a concordance is a ready-
made pile of dictionary slips. The availability of concordances thus greatly
assists the compilation of dictionaries, whether based on historical prin-
ciples or frequency of usage.

In the realm of classical Malay this work has hardly begun. Dictionaries
useful for classical Malay (Klinkert 1885; Wilkinson 190 1-03, 1932)
include citations from texts, though the selection is not systematic, nor
arranged on historical principles (which would have been difficult in any
case, as most texts used were manuscripts dating from the nineteenth
century). A foretaste of the rich discoveries which can be expected is
Matheson's (1979) iniriguing study of the changing meaning of 'melayu'
in southern court histories. This involved a great investment of time simply
in finding where the word was used, which could have been short-circuited
if concordances of the texts had been available. (Though it should be noted
that the study depends upon a fuller and more sensitive appreciation of
context than a concordance alone would provide.) What can be done with
'meiuyu' can be done with any number of culturally or linguistically
interesting terms. Clusters of near-synonyms may be particularly reveal-
ing: inter alia Matheson's work suggests further consideration of 'tanah:
'kerajaan: 'daerah', 'uiurn', etc. This is still a virgin field. Light may fa11
on meanings, dialects, and genres.

Analogously, a concordance may throw light on small-scale syntactic
structures. A fine example of a study of this kind - made without the help
of a concordance - is Tol's (1984) analysis of suruh constructions in
seventeenth-century Malay. What knowledge have we of the use of even
the commonest conjunctions and enclitics in classical Malay? Accumul-
ation of such knowledge makes the concordance a useful aid in resolving
cruxes in a text edition. In this way, the making of concordances may play
a dynamic part in the editorial process. 'Now one also needs a concordance
from which to prepare an edition from which to make a concordance',
comments Bessinger drily (Cameron et al. 1970:9).

Concordances are not only about words (or phrases). They are also
about the relationships between words (or phrases). The first concordance
was indeed intended, as the name suggests, to demonstrate agreements
(concordantiae) in the text of the Vulgate Bible. Like its successors, it was
concerned therefore with the form of the text, in the belief that in the form
lay part of the text's meaning. In this respect, the concordance is a re-
arrangement of the text designed to illuminate some aspects of its form.
It wil1 allow inferences about choice of vocabulary and elementary pat-
terns of collocation; it could conceivably contribute to questions of

78 I. Proudfoot

authorship2 - though it is not particularly suited to any of these inquiries.
The brief contexts of the concordance do promise, however, to throw

some light upon formulaic composition at the level of the phrase. Parry's
first generalization of the techniques of oral bardic composition to literary
works was facilitated by concordances of Homer. This experience is
relevant to classica1 Malay. Sweeney (1987: 73-76) has pointed to formu-
laic conventions in the manuscript tradition, and my study (Proudfoot
1967: ii 193-197) of the prose mousedeer texts threw a little light on
scriba1 use of formulaic parallelism. Concordances promise to enhance our
perception of formulae and variations at the phrase level, and perhaps
point indirectly to formulaic structures on a larger scale. The concordance-
based study by Koster and Maier of Syair Ken Tambuhan (1982; cf.
Akehurst 198 1: 156- 157) explores some of these possibilities.

In general the concordance is an apt tool for lexicology, but for most
other linguistic studies and for stylistics it is a blunt instrument. For other
purposes, other methods of calculating and displaying patterns in the text
are more fruitful (Hockey 1980: 79- 143). In the medium term, the greatest
benefit of today's concordance-making may prove to be the provision of
computer-readable texts which can be exploited more flexibly than was
feasible or imaginable in the days of the pen and ink. For the time. being,
though, I expect that the use to which concordances of classical Malay
texts wil1 most often be put wil1 not differ from the most frequent use of
other concordances: they wil1 be used as comprehensive indexes to texts
hitherto unindexed or selectively indexed.3

Policy questions about the form of a Malay concordance
The day of the computer-generated concordance may be brief. But it is
with US now. If we wil1 make a concordance of a classical Malay text, we
must decide the most useful shape for its unidimensional display. This
involves taking positions on issues which have perennially divided con-
cordance-makers, whether they have wielded quill or qwerty. The ques-
tions are:

Should the concordance be lemmatized?
Should its spelling be normalized?
Should it distinguish homographs?
How should context be delimited?
and
Should al1 words in the text be included?

For diplomatists, the concordance is a mechanica1 rearrangement of

2 Is Hikayat Hang Tuah the work of two hands? Kassim Ahmad's hypothesis (1964: xii-xiii)
could not be disproved, but might be confirmed by careful study of frequent vocabulary
usage. Such studies, however, lie more in the domain of statistical analysis.

3 The brief indexes available are generally to proper names or intuitively selected 'unusual'
words. Even the more substantial (Matheson and Andaya 1982; De Josselin de Jong 196 1)
continue to focus on such personal names and toponyms rather than topics.

Concordances and Classical Malay 7 9

aspects of the surface form of the text; analysts accept that some editorial
interpretation may enhance the utility of the concordance as a reference
work. These questions wil1 therefore be answered differently by supporters
of diplomatic and analytica1 practice (Hart 1979: 230). The answers wil1
also be influenced by the particular characteristics of the material being
treated.4 To date these issues have been debated mainly by scholars
working with European languages, with alphabetic writing systems, and
dealing with corpora of drama, verse, or punctuated prose. We, though,
must consider the particular needs of classica1 Malay.

Should it be lemmatized?
concordance entries are almost always listed according to the order of key
words. Should the key word be the form which actually appears in the text?
Or should it be the 'dictionary' form of the word, the 'lemma'. There is
feeling in the concordance world both for and against lemmatization.
Stances have been adopted on both practica1 and principled grounds.

Lemmatizing the words of a text is far harder than making a concord-
ante from them. Lemmatizing inevitably means taking the trouble to
resolve ambiguities and irregularities. To take a Malay example, beribu
would have to be construed as bedibu or be(r)+nbu according to context.
Although it is conceivably within the capacity of the computer to resolve
such ambiguities, such sophisticated programming is beyond present in-
vention. The requirements of context sensitivity would in the end be similar
to those for machine translation, which is still an unachieved ideal. In
practice, then, lemmatization may mean extensive editorial intervention.
The diplomatist sees two detriments here. First, the processing of the
concordance is considerably slowed. Without lemmatization, a concord-
ante can be generated swiftly and entirely mechanically. Second, as hu-
man judgement is involved, pure mechanica1 predictability is sacrificed to
some degree. The more interventionist position regards the concordance
as more than merely a re-arrangement of the undigested text. The text has
already been changed by subjecting it to a new principle of organization:
why should the restructuring not go further?

A secondary objection to lemmatization raised by the diplomatists is
that the 'abandonment of the simple alphabetical arrangement of headings
- to which al1 users have equally easy access . . . necessarily restricts the
genera1 usefulness of the concordance' (Howard-Hill 1979: 4).5 Failure to
lemmatize may not be very painful in most Indo-European languages for,
apart from the occasional aorist or passive past participle prefix and some
vowel modulation, the Indo-European conjugations and declensions rely

On al1 these issues, see Hockey's excellent chapter on 'Word Indexes, Concordances and
Dictionaries' (1980: 41-78); also Fogel 1962.

5 Howard-Hill's policy is exemplified in the prestigiouc Oxford Shakespeare Concordances
(Howard-Hill 1969-72). His stance is rebutted convincingly by Lusignan 1980; it is taken
to extremes by Fleury 1986: 240.

8 O I. Proudfoot

on suffixes. Consequently even without lemmatization, the grammatica1
variants and derived stems of a root tend to cluster together in the alpha-
betic sequence of key words. Even so, with highly inflected languages
blessed with a wel1 established lexicographical tradition, lemmatization
seems both natura1 and desirable (cf. Burton 1982:200). Fleury, for in-
stance, felt lemmatization to be self-evidently indicated for any Latin
concordance (1 986:240).

What holds for Latin applies a fortiori to Malay, where common prefixes
would scatter verba1 and derived forms up and down the alphabet. It seems
unproductive to allow lists of the occurrences of aiami diaiami, kualami
mengalami, pengalaman etc. to be separated by dozens or hundreds of
pages. Nor wil1 lemmatization make access to Malay forms less easy.
Rather the contrary: al1 who are accustomed to using Malay dictionaries
are thoroughly inured to lemmatization.

It may be that for certain studies of morphology and syntax, and for
some studies of formulaic patterning, an unlemmatized concordance of
raw words would be preferable, but for the purpose to which the concord-
ante is best adapted, lexicology, and if the concordance is to be used as
a topica1 index, lemmatization is clearly desirable. A further argument for
lemmatization of Malay is that the presence of affixation is a socio-
linguistic variable marking register (Benjamin 1988). The play of this
feature is both better observed and better accommodated in a lemmatized
listing.

Should its spelling be normalized?
As in other traditions before print, the spelling of classica1 Malay manu-
scripts is notoriously inconsistent. Standardization of spelling is a product
of print and mass education. In the transition from manuscript to print
culture, a standard form is also more characteristic of learned languages,
and less characteristic of vernaculars. Compare the spelling of Latin and
English in Shakespeare's England, or of Arabic and Malay in kitab texts.
The written dialect we cal1 classica1 Malay falls toward the middle of the
spectrum running from learned language to vernacular. It is a learned
language of literature and religion while other Malay dialects are (for some
of its users) mother tongue or lingua franca. In addition, the poorly adapted
Arabic script used to write classica1 Malay is the source of some spelling
variation, principally in vowelizing; though at the Same time that script's
skeletal nature keeps at bay some spelling variation which a fully pho-
nemic script might have revealed. It is clear, too, that spelling conventions
vary with time and place (besar: besyar, etc.). Some spelling practices may
reflect dialectal differences (pula : pulak memunuh : membunuh, etc.).
These possibilities are often remarked by editors of Malay texts, but the
variations found in their manuscripts are rarely reported consistently

Concordances and Classical Malay 8 1

in their text editions.6 This is regrettable. Working in the more elaborated
scriba1 tradition of Java, Behrend (1987:xiv-xv, 362-367) points out
that spelling and handwriting styles may illumine the geographic
and social provenance of texts - or what he calls the ecology of trans-
mission.

Confronted with manuscript variation of this kind, European con-
cordance-makers have been divided over the desirability and use-
fulness of normalizing spellings in a concordance. The problem is
to accommodate pre-print variability within a print-conceived structure
(Ong 1982: 101, 123- 126). The diplomatic position is that a concordance
should not emend the text upon which it is based. With a printed text 'even
typographical errors should also be left as they are'? In this
way no feature of the text will be lost. But by the same token, the con-
cordance is no longer based on words, but on graphemes. Coverage of a
word will be dispersed according to its different graphic forms, difficult to
locate without a multitude of cross-references - which the editor must
add. The concordance thus loses potency as a survey t001 for those inter-
ested in words (Gartner 1980; Burton 1982:200) - or in lemmatized
words. However, it is possible to retain the word-based organization of
the concordance without sacrificing spelling variation by normalizing
the key word headings which define the order of entries in the concord-
ante while retaining graphic forms in the illustrative contexts. This
strategy serves both analytic and diplomatic interests efficiently (Parrish
1962: 1 O).

But what in classical Malay do we mean by the words and forms of the
text? Until the early twentieth century, a scholarly edition of a classica1
Malay text might use the Arabic script. In modern Arabic, Persian, and
Urdu studies this would pass unremarked, and concordances naturally
follow suit. But during the twentieth century, in Indonesia and Malaysia,
Arabic script has been largely displaced by Roman spelling. Modern
editions of classica1 Malay texts are now published in Roman script, both
to make the text accessible to modern readers, and because the Roman
spellings are more complete phonemically. To be useful, a concordance
must be based on an accessible published text. Concordances of classica1

It is customary to devote a section of the editor's introduction to cursory notes on the
'spelling of the text'. Alternatives to this practice are providing a parallel version in Arabic
script, as did Jones in his edition of Hikayat Sultan Ibrahim (1983), or providing the edited
text in Arabic script, as did Shellabear in his edition of Hikayat Sen Rama (1915).
Shellabear used Arabic script not only to preserve antique spellings, but also because in
Singapore in 1915 the Latin script was widely used only for 'low' Malay.

On attitudes to dialectal or historica1 divergence from apriori standard form, see Teeuw
1959: 152-154.
Hockey 1980: 65 ,  adding 'Corrections to them can be inserted in brackets in the text, but
the original should not be deleted'. But even the very diplomatic Oxford Shakespeare
Concordances emend rank typographical errors.

82  I. Proudfoor

Malay texts will therefore be based on Roman transcriptions of manuscript
material.8

The implications are twofold. The spelling of a Romanized text has
already been significantly normalized. Interesting graphic variation in the
manuscript has been filtered out of most editions in the process of trans-
literating from Arabic to Roman script. On the other hand, a variety of
modern transcriptions has been employed. Not only have the official
systems of spelling and word division been reformed, but scholars have
improvised upon them as well.9 There is, therefore, little value in retaining
the spelling of the printed editions insofar as it is a matter of one transcrip-
tion system or another. It is not interesting to know whether Mulyadi
( 1  983) made Indraputra orlndeputera the her0 of her text, nor that Skinner
should have transcribed the Same word as Tjé'in 1963, Ché' in 1965 and
Cik in 1985. But it may prove interesting to know where or how often
Mulyadi's text has manusia and manusyia. Such manuscript variations,
conveyed through transcription, are worth retaining. Thus, nothing is lost
in modernizing a transcription system, so long as it is done systematically
so that any recorded variation is preserved. There is no cost in normalizing
rjahaja to cahaya, or tjaja to caya, so long as the distinction between the
variant forms is retained, with the occurrences of both interleaved in a
common entry under the normalized headword, say cahaya.

Compounds present a sticky problem for the word-based concordance,
as they raise the problem of fixing word boundaries. Fortunately the
problem is only severe for compounding languages, a category which does
not include classical Malay. Nevertheless, a few awkwardnesses will have
to be dealt with. In the manuscript tradition, word division was partly
indicated by allographic form but otherwise usually ignored. Where it is
indicated, i t  is little more consistent than the spelling. Should barangkali
be one word while barang siapa is two? This follows modern practice, but
means that barangkali wil1 be listed in the concordance after barang and
not at al1 under kali, whereas barang siapa will be represented first among
al1 the uses of barang and again under siapa. Or is it preferable to follow
modern practice with the title Yang Dipertuan, which in a concordance wil1
be buried under yang and the verba1 forms of tuan, or is this form better
listed separately as one word Yangdipertuan, which is not at odds with the
manuscript practice? Cross-referencing is a common way of dealing with
such difficulties.

At a lower level is the problem of defining words and affixes. In Roman-
script text editions more word divisions have been introduced than the
manuscript form would support. In manuscript, for instance, yang is regu-
larly joined to what follows. The spelling reform agreed to by the Indone-

8 An edition in Jawi with vocalized headwords (or Rornanized headwords) is conceivable,
though pointless while Jawi reading skills are not widespread. On this question, too, see
Behrend 1987: x-xv.

9 Recently, Brakel 1975:95 on spelling and 1975:43 on word division.

Concordances and Classical Malay 8 3

sian and Malaysian governments in 1972 has moved even further from the
manuscript tradition by separating di and ke from following words when
they indicate spatial relationships. Romanized texts also distinguish the
suffix -kan and kan as the abbreviated form of akan, although these are
represented by the Same manuscript form. Despite such grey areas, as the
concordance must be based on published Romanized texts which give no
access to manuscript word divisions, and as the headings of the concord-
ante should be standard, predictable, and accessible, we are constrained
to follow the modern conventions.

Should it distinguish homographs?
Homographs abound in Malay written in the Arabic script. A major task
of the editor of a classica1 Malay text is to manage the distinguishing of
homographs by vocalization in the Roman script. With Roman transcrip-
tion, which is more complete phonemically, the limited number of homo-
graphs which remain are almost always homophones. In discussing Malay
concordances made from Romanized text editions, therefore, the two
terms are effectively interchangeable.

The diplomatic view is that homographs should not be distinguished as
a matter of principle: 'it is best to let the machine do unaided as much as
you can of the big job, to interfere with it as little as possible, to resolve
that a machine concordance is different in kind from a manual concord-
ante, and that this is not necessarily a bad thing' (Bessinger in Cameron
et al. 1970:37; de Tollenaere 1976: 123). By deciding to lemmatize the text,
we have already moved away from this stance. The example of editorial
intervention in lemmatization given above involved precisely distinguish-
ing homophones (benbu). However, it may be unwise to go beyond what
is necessary to support lemmatization. As a matter of practica1 utility,
homophones are easily distinguished in their concordance contexts, while
conversely it is difficult for an editor to detect them al1 before the concord-
ante is compiled (Hockey 1980:63).

There are sound reasons for not trying to make distinctions. If the
decision turns on etymology only, it may be a scholarly artifice. It is
conceivable, too, that homophones may be used for deliberate ambiguity.
But above all, at the present stage of Malay philology, decisions on what
are varieties of sense or grammatica1 function and what are homophones
may not always be clear. The high-frequency homophones which have
bedevilled European concordance-makers are distinguished by grammat-
ical function. Examples are le or la in French, die in German, or that in
English. Among common analogous forms in Malay would be yang and
akan. The distinction of the senses of that in English rests on a highly
developed and conventionally accepted description of parts of speech the
like of which has not begun to emerge in Malay studies (Benjamin 1988:
30-3 1). It is therefore premature to distinguish occurrences of yang and
akan on functional grounds. Nor does it seem wise to distinguish homo-

84 I. Proudfoot

phones by imposing a priori semantic distinctions; this tends to prejudge
issues best resolved within the framework provided by the concordance
listing. So long as an editor's decisions cannot be confidently predicted by
the users of the concordance, the accessibility of the concordance wil1 be
degraded.

The costs of not distinguishing are slight. Statistics of vocabulary range
and frequency wil1 be marginally distorted.

How is context to be delimited?
An objection to many published concordances has been that the
context in which words are placed has been limited arbitrarily for
reasons of mechanica1 convenience. Some obloquy has been directed
toward the KWIC format because its common form restricts context
to one line of printed output. In the early years of computing, this
amounted to no more than a few words. But the objection is not only that
the context may be too brief, but also that it is not defined by the
sense units of the text (while, of course, in hand-made concordances
contexts can be crafted case by case).lo The question is, how are the
appropriate sense units to be determined. For most European concord-
ance-makers, this has been a manageable problem. If the text being treated
is in verse, is a play, or is punctuated prose, then strategies for fixing
relevant contexts are easily engineered (Spevack 1973: 18; Fleury 1986:
24 1). Classical Malay syair verses mostly observe the sense division of the
couplet; so, in dealing with verse, a single couplet, or pair of verses for
words at verse-end, is an aptly defined context. Classical Malay prose is
almost wholly unpunctuated, and there is yet little understanding of how
its natura1 sense units are delimited or interrelated (Sweeney 1987: 236-
237)." The punctuation introduced into transliterated texts by the editors
is largely intuitive. A delineation of context using hierarchies of punctu-
ation, feasible for European texts, thus loses its attraction in classical
Malay. Lacking alternatives, it is difficult to object to the arbitrary
delimitation of context for prose text.

How generous should an arbitrarily defined context be? The greater the
context reproduced, the more convenient the concordance becomes as a
research tool in its own right. But for a text of any length, the price of
generous contexts is spectacular bulk. The happiest compromise for most
purposes is, I believe, the conventional KWIC format. With one 'key word
in context' per line, the key words being arranged alphabetically in a
column near the centre of the page, and as much context to left and right
as can be managed, the KWIC format is economical. Moreover, as occur-
rences of the key word are aligned in a central column, the concordance

' O  Thus Fleury wishes to remove useless words encumbering the text, at the expense of shorter
contexts (1 986: 24 1).

' l  I t  would be too optimistic to believe that Becker 1979 has advanced our understanding.

Concordances and Classical Malay 85

will display recurring patterns in the context quite effectively.12 (To aid this
purpose, prose and rhyming verse contexts should be distinguished, though
the choice may sometimes be unclear in classica1 Malay texts.)

Should al1 words in the text be included?
Ideally, the concordance should be complete; in practice, many are not.
The reason is entirely practical. Even with the spare KWIC format, the
concordance of a text of any length quickly becomes unmanageable. For
a printed book with, say, 200 pages of 450 words per page, even a tightly
formatted KWIC concordance will likely run to 1250 pages. It is possible
to reduce the bulk significantly by omitting the relatively very few words
which occur with very high frequency (Fogel 1962:24).13 For example, the
length of a concordance of Tuhfat al-Nafis could be reduced by one-third
with the omission of its 20 most common words. These common words
are typically conjunctions and prepositions; in the Tuhfat al-Nafis they
would be (in order of frequency): maka, itu, yang, raja, dan, ke, di, pun,
dipertuan, dengan, ia, orang, muda, serta, dalam, baginda, sultan, Riau,
apabila, syahdan.

Concern for the world's forests and the ire of bookbinders may be good
reasons for giving up access to maka, itu, yang and their ilk. Most concord-
ance-makers have been persuaded. To more idealistic souls, such compro-
mise is ignoble. In a veiled attack on the Oxford Shakespeare Concord-
ances, Spevack (1973: 17-18) argues for completeness at any cost. His
most telling point is that it is fallacious to assume that the common is
unimportant.14 Common words can unlock both overt and latent charac-
teristics of the text. Displaying conjunctions in context can illumine syntax,
for instance; formulaic phrases hinge on common words; and the particles
of negation or emphasis may be critica1 to style (Fogel1962: 24; Bessinger
1969: xi, xvi). Further, with Malay philology still in its infancy, even the
commonplace is interesting.

12 Bessinger 1969: xvii; Burton 198 1: 147; Tebben 1977: v. Sorting the entries of a particular
word in order of their left or (usually) right context is implied.

There appears to be a scholarly aversion to the KWIC format which is not wholly
rational. Howard-Hill, for instance, assumes that KWIC context wil1 always be as limited
as early line-printer output made it, and denigrates the value of sorting by context using
a hypothetical example which trivializes the issue (Howard-Hill 1979: 50-55). Compare
Burton's (1982: 205) real example of sorting by context. One suspects that the KWIC
format is not valued because it does not try to emulate the dignity of the handmade typeset
concordance: cf. Oakman 1979:79.

' 3  By omitting 13 1 common words in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Ellison was
able to reduce the size of his concordance by 59% (Fogel 1962:24). With the Tuhfat al-
Nafi, the reduction would be 62%.

14 His first argument that completeness runs with the grain of the new technology, wherein
omission is actually more difficult than mindless completeness, is the argument of a zealot.
In any case the concordance is to be published with an old technology: on paper. Note that
Spevack does not approve of KWIC displays.

86 I. Proudfoot

On the big issues of concordance-making, then, the positions which wil1
prove most profitable for classical Malay are neither partisanly diplomatic
nor analytic. The optimal approach might be labelled 'conservatively
analytical'. Its method may be distilled into some working rules for con-
cordance-making in Malay.

The point of departure is that a concordance can only be as good as the
published edition upon which it is based; and if it is not based on the best
published edition, then its value is diminished.

In form, the concordance:

1. should be ordered by lemma (dictionary-form key word);
2. should group derived forms of the lemma in a logica1 order under the

lemma heading;
3. should list occurrences of the Same word in order of the context which

follows;
4. should use a standard spelling for the lemma headings;
5. should preserve graphic variants indicated by the edited text;
6. should distinguish verse from prose;
7. should give a complete treatment of al1 words, including the most

frequent;
8. should illustrate words in an arbitrary context as generously as

possible.

By following these guidelines, a useful body of lemmatized texts and
concordances could be built up.

Making Malay concordances'5
Implementation of the guidelines listed above involves two major tasks:
the lemmatization of the text upon which the concordance is based, and
the conversion of the lemmatized text into a wel1 structured and formatted
concordance.

Lemmatization
To create a concordance based on dictionary forms, the lemmatized form
of every word in the text must first be determined. The lemmatization of
a classical Malay text by hand would be a daunting process. To examine
the text word-by-word and to tag the affixed forms and roots would be both
time-consuming and error-prone. It would also prove highly repetitive, as
the Same or related forms kept reappearing. How many times might the

'5 A pilot project was funded by the Australian National University in 1988. Programs for
lemmatizing, sorting and formatting have been written in the Pascal and Snobol languages
to run on the Macintosh personal computer. The first experiments have been conducted
with permission of the KITLV on Mulyadi's edition of Hikayat Indraputra, 1983 (a copy
of which concordance, covering liv + 914 pp., has meanwhile been deposited also in the
KITLV library), and with the author's permission on Matheson's edition of Tuhfar al-Nafis
(in progress).

Concordances and Classical Malay 87

long-suffering editor come across yet another menyembah needing to be
tagged as having the me- prefix and the root sembah? One way of simpli-
fying the process would be to make a preliminary concordance of the raw
words of the text, which would bring together al1 the di- forms, for instance,
for more convenient examination and tagging. But what of -kan forms?
or ke- ...- an forms? etc.

The Gordian knot may be cut by capitalizing on some features of
classica1 Malay. The classica1 Malay manuscript tradition is expressed in
a rather standardized dialect with a transparent morphemic system (Teeuw
1959: 152-4; Benjamin 1988: 15- 16). Moreover, both the prose and verse
styles of classica1 Malay are quite repetitive, being adapted to aura1 con-
sumption. Repeated standard forms suggest a role for the electronic
drudge. It is feasible to write an efficient program for computer-assisted
lemmatization, which will pass through the text analysing and tagging the
morphemic structure of each word. Such a program may be made smart
by introducing elaborate rules for morphemic analysis, but a point of
diminishing returns is soon reached. Editorial oversight will always be
necessary, because it is not possible to know beforehand that the peculiar '

forms of every text have been foreseen, and because it is not efficient (nor
feasible) to ask the computer to deal with occasionally ambiguous analyses
when these can be readily resolved by an operator. In practice, the low
diversity of vocabulary of classica1 Malay material makes it quite feasible
for the operator to inspect every analysis the program proposes. In the
Tuhfat al-Nafis, for example, a text of 149,000 words ('tokens') involves
only 7,000 discrete word-forms ('types'). The aim, then, is a program
which will offer its best guess as the proposed morphemic analysis. The
smarter it is, the less often the operator will have to do anything other than
signify assent. The program can be instructed to remember the operator's
previous decisions and to apply them automatically if appropriate, or to
incorporate them in formulating its later best guesses.

Experience suggests that a program operating on a fairly simple set of
rules gets better than 9 out of 10 of its best guesses right. Occasionally the
operator has to tel1 the program that the base of memuat is not puat (its
best guess) but rnuat, but should the program later meet the form memu-
atkan, it will get that right. The memory of such decisions can be stored
in a dictionary file built up by the program, so that even the need to make
best guesses becomes infrequent. The decisions made in analysing one text
can then be carried over to subsequent exercises.

The program creates a lemmatized text by tagging the unprocessed text.
The requirements of a tagging system are that it:

1. should indicate morphemic construction unambiguously;
2. should allow the untagged form to be reconstructed unambiguously;
3. should allow standard spellings to be used while preserving the

spelling of the text; and
4. should be simple.

88 I. Proudfoot

A simple system meeting these needs involves five special symbols, namely
{ }  A ' =. Applied to standard transcriptions of classical Malay, it produces
tagged text which is still comprehensible, though ugly, and which can
easily be further edited if ever this should be required. Another simple
program allows unambiguous reconstruction of the untagged text. The
method is adequately illustrated in the following text excerpt from
Mulyadi's edition of Hikayat Indraputra (1983):

1. Unlemmatized form
<P 49>
<L l >  <Q l >  Bahwa ini kisah ceritera Hikayat Indraputra yang indah-
indah
<L 2> perkataannya yang masyhur pada tanah manusyia dan pada tanah
jin,
<L 3> terlalu elok rupanya, syahdan kesaktiannya, dan terlalu pantas
<L 4> barang lakunya, dan sikapnya terlalu baik dan rupanya terlalu
amat
<L 5> manis seperti laut madu, dan jejaknya sederhana, barang lakunya
<L 6> dan pekertinya terlalu baik.
<L 7> Sebermula pada zaman itu seorang pun tiada samanya, dan terlalu
<L 8> arif dan bijaksana dengan gagah dan perkasyanya, dan <Q 2>
dengan
<L 9> beraninya, dan beberapa pekerjaan yang tiada dapat dikerjakan
orang
<L 10> dapat dikerjakan oleh Indraputra.

2. Lemmatized and normalized form
<P 49> <L l >  <Q I >  Bahwa={bahawa} {ini} {kisah} {centera}
H{hikayat} Indraputra={inderaputera} {yang} {indah}-indahAr2' <L 2>
'per{kata}an'nya' {yang} {masyhur} {pada} {tanah} manu-
syia={manusia} {dan} {pada} {tanah} Gin}, <L 3>'ter{lalu} {elok}
{rupajnya' , syahdan={syahadan} ' ke{sakti}an' nya' , {dan} ' ter{lalu}
{pantas} <L 4> {barang} {IakuJnya', {dan) {sikap}nya' ' ter{lalu) {baik}
(dan} {rupa}nya' ' ter{lalu} {amat} <L 5> {manis} (seperti} {laut} {madu},
{dan} Cjejak}nya' {sederhana}, {barang} {laku}nya'<L 6> {dan}
{pekerti}nya' ' ter{lalu} {baik}. <L 7> S' se'ber{mula} {pada} {zaman}
{itu} ' se{orang} {pun} {tiada} {samalnya', {dan}' ter{lalu} <L 8> {arif}
{dan} {bijaksana} {dengan} {gagah} {dan} perkasyanya={perkasa}nya',
{dan} <Q 2> {dengan} <L 9> {beranijnya' , {dan} ' be' ber{apa} peker-
jaan='per{kerja}an' {yang] {tiada} {dapat} 'di{kerja}kanX {orang] <L
10> {dapat} 'di{kerja}kan' {oleh} Indraputra={inderaputera}.

3. Reconstituted form
Bahwa ini kisah centera Hikayat Indraputra yang indah-indah perkataan-
nya yang masyhur pada tanah manusyia dan pada tanah jin, terlalu elok

Concordances and Classical Malay 8 9

rupanya, syahdan kesaktiannya dan
etc.
This method of tagging permits al1 non-standard forms to be retained in
conjunction with the lemmatized standard forms. For convenience, the
standard spelling is taken to be that prescribed by the Malaysian Dewan
Bahasa dan Pustaka (1982), or a spelling analogous to the prescribed
forms.

Using this lemmatization program, a new and versatile form of the base
text is created which wil1 sustain concordance-making while also serving
many other analytica1 purposes.

Forming the concordance
For the reason developed above, the conventional KWIC format is well
suited to a general-purpose concordance of classica1 Malay. It is preferable
that listings of identical key words should be sorted according to their
context, rather than simply arranged in order of their occurrence in the text.
Sorting by context, whether left or right, has the potential for grouping
similar phrases and quasi-compounds, and uncovering formulaic fea-
tures.16 Illustrated below is a right-sorted KWIC format resembling
Packard's Concordante of Livy (1968), with some of the improvements
suggested by Fleury (1986: 239). The text is again drawn from the first
few pages of Mulyadi's Hikayat Indraputra (1983).

barang I 1

hambaNya. Maka kata tengkarak itu,
ada engkau bawakan aku obat beranak,

berjalan. Ingat-ingat, jangan alpa
laut madu, dan jejaknya sederhana,

kesaktiannya, dan terlalu pantas
pun mangkin benambah baik dan

-mongan berkeliling negen, ujarnya,
inilah maka kubawa berjalan.' Maka
pen orang kasih akan Indraputra itu,

dus oiang utas itu, 'Perbuatlah olehmu
emas itu, 'Hai utas, perbuatlah olehmu

'Barang
barang
barang
barang
barang
barang
'Barang
barang
barang
barang
barang

dipeliharakan Allah taala juga tuhanku danpada bala raksyaksa itu.'
kehendakmu kuben. Jikalau aku beranak perempuan, kubenkan akan
kerja anakku' Maka ujar Indraputra 'Ya ayahanda, sekalian hamba
lakunya dan pekeninya terlalu baik. Sebermula pada zaman itu
lakunya, dan sikapnya terlalu baik dan rupanya terlalu amat manis
lakunya sedap manis. Wa 'Ilahu a'lam bi 's-sawab. Alkisah peri
siapa kamu tahu abat dan hikmat beranak hendaklah kam" katakan,
siapa melihat rupa Indraputra itu kasih hatinya, ada yang memben
siapa memandang muka Indraputra itu tiada lupa danpada hatinya.
tahu kamu.' Maka diperbuat oleh pandai kayu itu seekor ikan terlalu
tahumu supaya kulihat.' Maka pandai emas itu pun menysembah

Extending the principle of dictionary ordering, and also in order to make
the display more effective, entries lying under a lemma-heading are best
sorted int0 morphological groups. Thus efforts should be made to group
together permutations of the verba1 di-lkau-lku- and me- forms (e.g.
dialami mengalamz>, and to keep secondary stems (e.g. pengalaman) and
their denvatives (e.g. berpengalaman) together in the appropriate place
within the main lemma grouping. This reflects normal dictionary practice.
The listing order should also deal as well as possible with possible mor-
phological ambiguities. For example, it is appropnate to list the di-lkau-
lku- verb forms directly after the unaffixed root because, with an explicit

l6 Cornpare the following excerpt, which is sorted by nght context, with the concordance
excerpt given by Koster and Maier (1982.13), in which entnes are sorted by order of
appearance in the text

9 O I. Proudfoot

subject, this verb form is that of the simple root. This departs from the
alphabetic practice of the lexicographers, who would have ber- forms
intemening.

With these purposes in mind, the key words within a lemma entry might
be ordered as follows:

root
di - kau - ku - me(N) -
di - i etc.
di- kan etc.

ter - [stem group]
ber - [stem group]
per -

diper - etc.
diper - i etc.
diper - kan etc.
per - an [stem groupl

- [stem group]
pe(N)- an [stem groupl
ke - [stem groupl
ke - an [stem groupl
se - [stem group]
-an [stem groupl

Within each stem group, the same pattern of ordering applies. For forms
in every group and subgroup a further subordination applies:

1. -ku 2. reduplicated root 3. -1ah
-mu reduplicated stem - kah
-nya reciprocal - -me- -tah

- -ber- -pun
ber- - -an

When the concordance is based on a fully lemmatized tagged text, it is
a simple matter to convert the morphological analysis into a system for
automatic ordering in morphological groups.

Other information
Along with a concordance, it is good practice to include some elementary
statistica1 information about the text. Such information might include:

1. the type-token ratio, a simple calculation of the number of word-
forms ('types') as a proportion of the total number of words ('tokens')
in the text;

2. a frequency profile showing the number of types and tokens occur-
ring at each level of frequency (3,000 types and tokens occurring
only l time in the text, 1,000 types comprising 2,000 tokens occur-
ring only 2 times in the text, etc.);

Concordances and Classical Malay 9 1

3. a list of types in order of frequency;
4. a list of types in alphabetical order giving frequency and rank;
5. for verse, a list of rhyme words sorted alphabetically by their termina-

tions, with frequencies.

In conventional concordances, these statistics relate to words as they occur
in the text. Assuming that the concordance of a Malay text is lemmatized,
it would be both apt and valuable to generate such elementary statistics
for rnorphemic units other than the word (Fleury 1986:242). So, al1 the
above information in 1 to 4 could be supplied for roots and affixes as well
as words. The frequencies of the affix types, in particular, might prove a
telling discriminator of genre and antiquity.

The future
The particularities of one text become clearer when it can be put alongside
others which have been treated in a comparable fashion. The value of one
lemmatized text and one concordance is doubled by the creation of a
second. In order to make comparisons more productive, and to enhance
the contribution which computer-readable text can make to Malay philo-
logy, three areas of concern have to be borne in mind.
1. Questions relating to editorial practice and the state of Malay philology
have been recently aired by Jones (1980) and Kratz (1981) and compre-
hensively discussed by Robson (1988:17-21). Jones and Kratz argue for
conservative editorial practice. 'We have very far to go in our understand-
ing of the early development of the Malay language, and our investigations
can only be facilitated by editions of texts which produce clearly and
accurately in easily comprehensible form the material of the manuscripts
as it has survived.' An 'absolute minimum of alteration' is advisable (Jones
1980: 126, 125). In the Same vein, Kratz (198 1: 238) notes the desirability
of preserving 'al1 those peculiarities which may not seem of much signifi-
cance within the limited framework of the particular text tradition, but
which may well be important within a larger context'. In light of Behrend's
experience, one such element may well be graphic form.17

Ideally, what we need now are diplomatic editions of single dated
manuscripts of known provenance. Comparisons built upon such texts
promise to add most to our understanding of historica1 linguistics, scriba1
cultures, and literary form.
2. The second concern relates to compatibility. Comparison is facilitated
if texts have been treated in similar fashion. Two concordances arranged
on the Same principle are far more easily compared than two which follow
different philosophies. An even more important concern is for the future
use of the texts upon which current concordances may be based. If tagged

'7 Consider the desirability of recording manuscript spelling forms; a system of diacritics may
do so without disturbing the transliterated text, cf. Proudfoot 19673 16-17.

92 I. Proudfoot

text from one source cannot readily be translated int0 the form of another
source, the accumulation of banks of data is greatly hindered. Yet, if one
cannot selectively tap material from diverse sources, comparative and
historica1 work is needlessly handicapped. This is nota cal1 for the straight-
jacket. Compatibility does not require submission to any standard form,
but rather an effort to maintain ready translatability between tagging
systems. At the least, ambiguity must be avoided, and it must be possible
to retrieve the untagged form of the text.
3. Thirdly, Kratz (198 1: 240) notes the desirability of a 'generally access-
ible archive of computer-recorded texts'. As the computer is more and
more used in preparing texts for publication, more computer-readable data
will become available. An archive of the kind Kratz suggests, or at least
a registry of resources, will help to avoid duplication of work, and to inform
interested scholars of the availability of text materials. Fortunately such
archives exist. One is the Oxford Text Archive, which acts as a depository
for computer-readable text in a variety of European and other languages.
It also acts as a registry or referral point for collections of computer-
readable text held in other collections. Texts are made available for scho-
larly use on conditions determined by the depositors. The Oxford archive
now holds substantial amounts of material in 35 languages. It has a
negligible amount of Malay-Indonesian material: some extracts from Wil-
kinson and Winstedt's Pantun Melayu (1914), deposited by Thomas in
conjunction with his investigation of prosody (1980, also 1979). There is
no reason why the Oxford archive should not become a depository for
further Malay material. In any case, to have some single registry or
clearing-house will benefit future workers in this field.

In other fields of classical philology, the journey int0 computation has
been under way for some little time. The University of California has
assembled the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, a collection of over 60 million
words covering 'essentially al1 ancient Greek text materials extant from
the period between Homer and AD 600', and this is now available on CD-
ROM.'S It is presumptuous to think now of emulating this achievement in
the field of classica1 Malay. But the example is there. Let US hope at least
that future text editions will be prepared with the interests of computer
analysis in mind. In today's world, publication of a text edition should
mean not just the appearance of a book, but also of computer-readable
disks or tapes.

18 See status report Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (1987). Even more ambitious, but not a
project solely for classical literature, is the Trésorgénéraldeslanguesetparlers français, with
160 million words spanning the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries (Dendien 1988).

Concordances and Classical Malay

ABBREVIATIONS USED

BKI: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde of the KITLV
KITLV: Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde [Royal Institute of Linguis-
tics and Anthropology], Leiden.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akehurst, F.R.P., 198 1, 'Concordances of troubadour poetry in Old Occitan', in: P. Patton and
R.A. Holoien (eds), Computing in -e Humanities, ch. 9, Aldershot: Gower.

Becker, A.L., 1979, 'The figure a sentence makes: An interpretation of a classical Malay
sentence', Syntax and Semantics 12:243-259.

Behrend, T.E., 1987, The Serat Jatiswara; Structure and change in a Javanese poem, 1600-
1930, doctoral dissertation, Australian National University.

Benjamin, G., 1988, Grammar andpolity; The cultural and political background to standard
Malay, Singapore: National University of Singapore, Department of Sociology, Working
Paper No. 88.

Bessinger, J.B., Jr., with Philip H. Smith Jr., 1969, A concordance to Beowug Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press.

Bessinger, J.B., Jr. (ed.), and Philip H. Smith Jr. (programmer), 1978, A concordance to the
Anglo-Saxon poetic records, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Brakel, L., 1975. Hikayat Muhammad Hanajiyyah, The Hague: Nijhoff. [KITLV, Bibliotheca
Indonesica 12.1

Burton, Dolores M., 1981, 'Automated concordances and word-indexes: The process, the
programs, and the products', Computers and the Humanities 15: 139-154.

-, 1982, 'Automated concordances and word-indexes: Machine decisions and editorial
revisions', Computers and the Humanities 16:195-2 18.

Cameron, A., Roberta Frank, and John Leyerle, 1970, Computers and Old English concor-
dances, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.

Dendien, Jacques, et al., 1988, 'Le Trésor général des langues et parlers français de I'lnstitut
National de la Langue Française (I.Na.L.F.)', Computers and the Humanities 22:67-75.

Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1982: Daftar ejaan rumi Bahasa Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur:
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Fleury, Ph., 1986, 'Du texte latin à la concordance imprimée', Computersand the Humanities
20:239-245.

Fogel, Ephim G., 1962, 'Electronic computers and Elizabethan texts', Studies in Biblwgraphy
15:15-31.

Gartner, Kurt, 1980, 'Concordances and indices to Middle High German', Computers and
the Humanities 14:39-50.

Hart, Thomas E., 1979, Review of Bessinger 1978, in Computersand the Humanities 13:229-
244.

Hockey, Susan, 1980, A gulde to computer applications in the humanities, Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Howard-Hill, T.H., 1969-72, Oxford Shakespeare concordances, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
-, 1979, Literary concordances, New York: Praeger.
Jones, Russell, 1980, 'Problems of editing Malay texts, discussed with reference to the

Hikayat Muhammad Hanafiyyah', Archipel 20:12 1- 127.
-, 1983, Hikayat Sultan Ibrahim; The short version of the Malay text, Dordrecht: Foris.

[KITLV, Bibliotheca Indonesica 24.1
Josselin de Jong, P.E. de, 1961, 'Who's who in the Malay Annals', Joumal of the Malayan

Brunch of the Royal Asiatic Society 34-2:l-89.
Kassim Ahmad (ed.), 1964, Hikayat Hang Tuah, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

[Sin Sastera DBP 17.1
Klinkert, H.C., 1885, Nieuw Maleisch-Nederlandsch woordenboek, Leiden: Brill.

I. Proudfoot

Koster, G.L., and H. Maier, 1982, 'Variation within identity in the Syair Ken Tambuhan
examined with the help of a computer-made concordance', Indonesia Circle 29:3- 12.

Kratz, E.U., 1981, 'The editing of Malay manuscripts and textual criticism', BK1 137:229-
243.

Lusignan, S., 1980, Review of Howard-Hill 1979, in Computers and the Humanities 14: 129-
130.

Matheson, Virginia, 1979, 'Concepts of Malay ethos in indigenous Malay writings', Journal
of Southeast Asian Studies 10:35 1-37 1.

-, in the press, Tuhfar al-Najìs: A Malay lslamic history; The edited Malay text with introduc-
tion, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Matheson, Virginia, and B. Andaya, 1982, The Precious Gift (Tuhfatal-Nafis), Kuala Lumpur:
Oxford University Press.

Micro-OCC 1987, Oxford Electronic Publishing, Oxford University Press. [The micro-
computer version of Oxford concordance Program version 2.1

Mulyadi, S.W.R. (ed.), 1983, Hikayar 1ndraputra;A Malay romance, Dordrecht: Foris. [KITLV,
Bibliotheca Indonesica 23.1

Oakman, Robert, 1979, 'The Cocoa concordance Package', Appendix, in: T.H. Howard-Hill
1979:77-80.

Ong, Walter J., 1982, Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word, London: Methuen.
Packard, David W., 1968, A concordance to Livy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.
Parrish, S.M., 1962, 'Problems in the making of computer concordances', Studies in Bibli-

ography 15:l-14.
Proudfoot, I., 1967, The Hikayat Pelanduk Jenaka Malay myth and oral composition, Can-

berra: Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University (cyclostyled).
Robson, S.O., 1988, Pruzciples of lndonesian philology, Dordrecht: Foris. [KITLV, Working

Papers l.]
Shellabear, W.G., 19 15, 'Hikayat Sen Rama', Journalof theStraitsBranch of theRoyalAsiatic

Society 71:l-285.
Skinner, C., 1963, Sja 'irperang Mengkasar, The Hague: Nijhoff. [KITLV, Verhandelingen 40.1
-, 1965, Thecivil warin Kelantan in 1839, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Branch, Royal Asiatic

Society. [Monographs 2.1
-, 1985, The battle for Junk Ceylon; The Syair Sultan Maulana, Dordrecht: Foris. [KITLV,

Bibliotheca Indonesica 25.1
Smith, Philip H., Jr., 1979, 'Programmer's preface', in: J.B. Bessinger (ed.), 1969:xxi-xxix.
Spevack, M., 1973, 'Concordances: Old and new', Computer Studies in the Humanities and

Verba1 Behaviour 4: 17- 19.
Sweeney, Amin, 1987, A full hearing: Oraliry and literacy in the Malay woru  Berkeley:

University of California Press.
Tebben, Joseph R., 1977, Homer-Konkordanz; A computerconcordanceto the Homeric hymnr,

Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
Teeuw, A., 1959, 'The history of the Malay language; A preliminary survey', BKI 115: 138-

156.
'Thesaurus Linguae Graecae', 1987, Literag1 and Linguistic Computing 257.  [Status report.]
Thomas, Phillip, 1979, 'Syair and pantun prosody', Indonesia 2 7 5  1-63.
-, 1980, 'Long and short pantun lines', Review of Indonesian and Malayan Affair 14:23-39.
Tol, Roger G., 1984, 'Some order in ordering: Notes on suruh-constructions in 17th-century

Malay', BK1 140:459-475.
Tollenaere, F. de, 1976, 'Word indexes and word lists to the Gothic Bible: Experiences and

problems', in: A. Jones and R.F. Churchhouse, The computer in literaty and linguistic
studies, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Wilkinson, R.J., 1901-03, A Malay-English dictionary, 3 vols, Singapore: Kelly and Walsh.
-, 1932, A Malay-English dictionary (romanised), 2 vols, Mytilene: Salavopoulos and Kin-

derlis.

Concordances and Classical Malay 9 5

Wilkinson, R.J., and R.O. Winstedt, 19 14, Pantun Melayu, Singapore: Methodist Publishing
House.

WordCruncher: WC Index & WC View, 1989 (version 4.30), Provo, Utah: Electronic Text
Corporation, Brigham Young University.


Your bowser does not recognise Javascript:   many features of this site will not work.
malay concordance project

home

about

papers

blogs

searching

texts

direct search
Majlis

bibliography

text notes

list of words

list of rhyme words
Rhyme words
listed
alphabetically
and
by frequency
double-click on a word to see it in its rhyme context
reverse alphabetical
Benggala

1

jasa

1

didaki

1

bertingkat

1

jendela

1

masa

1

kaki

1

terikat

1

gempa

1

esa

1

jerami

1

rupa

1

bangsa

1

bumi

1

bangsanya

1

asalnya

1
frequency
Benggala

1

bangsanya

1

esa

1

jerami

1

asalnya

1

bertingkat

1

gempa

1

kaki

1

bangsa

1

bumi

1

jasa

1

masa

1

didaki

1

jendela

1

rupa

1
top


Your bowser does not recognise Javascript:   many features of this site will not work.
malay concordance project
home
about
papers
blogs
searching
texts
direct search
Bab Takzir
\n

\n

bibliography
\n

text notes
\n

list of words
\n
Bibliography
\n\n
\n

title:

\n\tBab Takzir\n

\n

edition:

\n\tMohamad Jajuli A. Rahman, The Malay Law Text, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1995.\n

\n

manuscript:

\n\tMS Add.2393, in the Sloane collection, British Library.\n

\n

date:

\n\ttext:  ? 1600s;
manuscript:  before 1753, when it was purchased by\n   the British Museum.\n

\n

provenance:

\n\ttext:   unknown, perhaps Javanese;
manuscript:  unknown, privately owned by Sloane.\n

\n

words:

\n\t3664 words.\n

\n

references:

\n\tto the pages (1-32) of the manuscript.\n

\n\n
\n\n
\n

\n\n

\n   Editorial notes\n

The text is untitled.  The first\n   section is, however, titled \"Bab Takzir\", hence the name applied\n   here to the whole text.\n

Jajuli gives a substantial introduction to\n   his text, discussing its antique spelling, its contents, and its\n   likely Arabic sources.  The sense of the text is often\n   obscure, presumably as a result of its adaptation from Arabic.\n

Bibliography:\n

Jajuli's edition has also been published as:\n
\n

•  Teks Undang-Undang Melayu\n      Pertengahan Abad Kelapan Belas  (tr. Che Ann Ghani),\n      Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1994.\n

•  The Undang-Undang: A mid-eighteenth century Malay law text, Canterbury: Unversity of Kent, 1986.  Occasional Paper No.6 of the Centre of South-East Asian Studies.\n

\n

\n   Preparation \n

Added:  April 2001\n

The Dewan Bahasa 1995 edition was\n   scanned for the MCP in Canberra using Recognita™\n   OCR. \n
top


Your bowser does not recognise Javascript:   many features of this site will not work.
malay concordance project

home

about

papers

blogs

searching

texts

direct search
Searches
To find a word in one text:
go to the
list of texts
, then select
the list of words found in the text
and double click on the word;
the single-text search
, and then look for a word and its related forms.
To find a word or phrase in one or many texts:
choose one of these searches:
Simple
for words and simple phrases
Optioned
for words and associations of words
Morphological
for grammatical forms or syntactic associations
Chronological
for words and simple phrases in a certain period
Optioned, morphological and chronological searches offer more control over the form of the report.
For more detailed information on search strategies, see the
User's guide
To find rhyme words:
go the
list of texts
, select a text, then choose the list of rhyme words and double click on a word.
To search all bibliographies, word lists, and rhyme lists:
use this
search:
To search all bibliographies, word lists, and rhyme lists:
top


Your bowser does not recognise Javascript:   many features of this site will not work.
malay concordance project

home

about

papers

blogs

searching

texts

direct search
Hikayat Iblis

bibliography

text notes

list of words
Text notes
MCP text

Iblis 19:16

1846

4 Rabiulawal 1262 = 2 March 1846

Iblis 18:15

alim

kurang jelas

Iblis 15:3

berdindu

? dendu

Iblis 16:2

berdiri

sesudahnya: segala mereka itu dan berkata-kata

Iblis 14:15

bunyi-bunyian

bunyi +ian

Iblis 15:1

bunyi-bunyian

bunyian2

Iblis 13:12

curang

j.w.a.w.r.a.n

Iblis 11:10

diam

d.a.m

Iblis 13:3

engkau

awangku

Iblis 14:8

ghaib-ghaib

aghaib2

Iblis 7:12

haji

kh.j.y

Iblis 19:14

jumaat

jumaat isnin

Iblis 11:14

jungjungankan

atau: junjungankau

Iblis 18:2

junub

j.n.w.b

Iblis 19:2

ketujuh

k.?.k, ? ketiga

Iblis 10:9

kosek

? gosok

Iblis 13:12

mengamilkan

m.ng.m.y.l.n

Iblis 18:6

menghias

menghia[s]

Iblis 17:5

meratib

m.r.q.y.b

Iblis 10:14

muda

mudah

Iblis 6:12

mukmin

m.w.m.y.n

Iblis 16:1

permainanmu

permaitmu

Iblis 1:6

persetua

p.r.s.t.y

Iblis 14:13

pujianmu

pujamu +ianmu

Iblis 14:7

sah

s.a.h

Iblis 11:13

sahaja

? = sembahnya

Iblis 11:12

salla=llahu alaihi wa=sallam

s:l.m

Iblis 4:10

sallallahu alaihi wasallam

s: ringkasan

Iblis 6:11

sallallahu alaihi wasallam

s: ringkasan

Iblis 8:10

sallallahu alaihi wasallam

s: ringkasan

Iblis 14:6

sebenar-benarnya

sebenarnya2

Iblis 9:2

sekali-kali

segala2

Iblis 11:2

surut

? = suruh

Iblis 15:14

syahadat

sahadat

Iblis 17:3

tuan

t.w.´.n
top


Your bowser does not recognise Javascript:   many features of this site will not work.
malay concordance project

home

about

papers

blogs

searching

texts

direct search
Hikayat Pelanduk Jenaka

bibliography

text notes

list of words
Text notes
MCP text

Pel 49:2

aur

awar

Pel 62:4

bagai

ba ][ bagai

Pel 28:7

bawa

bawa

Pel 74:1

berjalan

rakibah

Pel 55:9

berjalanlah

pun ber ][ pun berjalan

Pel 25:7

berkata

ber(a)kata

Pel 26:5

Bolehkah

ber[kata bo]leh kah

Pel 63:5

cucunya

cucu ][ cucunya

Pel 54:3

datanglah

datlah datanglah

Pel 22:4

demikian

de ][ demikian

Pel 59:4

dera-dera

= deras

Pel 19:3

dikawalah

= dikawallah

Pel 67:7

diludahinya

diludah[i]nya

Pel 56:8

gajah

ga[jah]

Pel 59:8

gempa

(a) gempa

Pel 73:7

hamba. Hamba

hamba2

Pel 40:4

hendak

hend[ak]

Pel 11:7

ia pun

? seharusnya: itu pun

Pel 57:6

"Inikah

for:  inilah

Pel 59:6

Inikah

seharusnya: inilah

Pel 66:10

isi rimba

isi rimba ][ isyi rimba

Pel 3:4

itu

itu itu

Pel 24:1

juata

= juita

Pel 36:2

Kak

? Kaf

Pel 67:9

kakinya

ka ][ kaki

Pel 73:7

kata

kata ka

Pel 32:3

kata raja kera

kata kera raja kera

Pel 72:4

laki-laki

lagi2

Pel 72:7

laki-laki

lagi2

Pel 72:10

laki-laki

lagi2

Pel 62:6

lihat

lih ][ lihat

Pel 19:10

ma`lum

manglum

Pel 14:3

Maka .. itu

dittography

Pel 71:6

maka

maka (maka)

Pel 26:10

maka pelanduk

maka pelanduk ][ maka pelanduk

Pel 31:4

makan

maka[n]

Pel 60:9

makaranya

makar[a]nya

Pel 24:7

7	memanggili

.m.m.ng.g.a.l

Pel 25:5

memanggili

memenggali

Pel 37:5

menaklukkan

mena[k]lukkan

Pel 68:8

mengamuk

mengal ][ mengamuk

Pel 61:9

mengelat

m.ng.y.k.t, for:  m.ng.y.l.t

Pel 62:1

mengelat

m.ng.y.k.t, for:  m.ng.y.l.t

Pel 62:2

mengelat

m.ng.y.k.t, for:  m.ng.y.l.t

Pel 73:8

mengiringkan

mengiri[ng]kan

Pel 17:6

menolakkan

seharusnya: menaklukkan

Pel 28:9

muka

mu[ka]

Pel 56:1

padang, padang

padang2

Pel 51:7

panjang

pan.. ][ panjang

Pel 9:7

pelanduk

MS:  pelandu[k]

Pel 18:7

pelanduk

MS:  peland[uk]

Pel 24:10

pun

pu[n]

Pel 28:9

putasy

? = putus

Pel 34:10

raja

raja ][ raja

Pel 50:6

raja

(a) raja

Pel 68:10

sabdaku

seharusnya: sabdanya

Pel 41:7

sebuah

s.w.h

Pel 41:8

sebuah

s[eb]uah

Pel 10:4

sekalian

segala

Pel 71:9

sekh rimba, sekh rimba

sekh rimba2

Pel 39:2

singa

seharusnya: kera

Pel 59:4

sini-sini

? = seni-seni

Pel 25:2

sungguhlah

= sungguhkah

Pel 6:1

takluk

tangluk

Pel 52:2

takut

takut ][ takutkan

Pel 71:7

terberak

t.r.t.i.r.k

Pel 73:7

tinggallah

tinggal[la]h

Pel 16:6

tuanku

MS:  tu tuanku

Pel 16:6

tuanku

tu tuanku
top


Your bowser does not recognise Javascript:   many features of this site will not work.
malay concordance project

home

about

papers

blogs

searching

texts

direct search
Hikayat Maharaja Marakarma

bibliography

illustrations

text notes

list of words

list of rhyme words
Text notes
MCP text

Mar 80a

...

illegible

Mar 139b

b.l.r

? baginda

Mar 7b

beludru

b.l.w.d.r.w

Mar 72b

bernaung

b.r.n.a.w.a.ng

Mar 145a

dicarak-carak

d.c.a.r.a.k

Mar 10b

gosong

k.s.ng

Mar 56a

hema

h.y.m.a

Mar 75a

khianat

h.y.n.a.n.T

Mar 123b

kuk.p.skan

? kulepaskan

Mar 122b

kukur

k.w.k.r

Mar 16b

laun

l.a.w.a.n

Mar 76b

mangsanya

m.s.a.n

Mar 40a

mangsanya

m.s.a.n

Mar 132b

menghaniakan

m.ng.h.a.n.y.a.k.n

Mar 11b

menugerahkan

m.n.g.r.h.k.n

Mar 80a

menyipta

m.ny.p.t

Mar 89a

menyipta

m.ny.p.t

Mar 136b

menyipta

m.ny.p.t

Mar 72b

mil.m

m.y.l.m

Mar 53a

naga gini

n.g.a.h g.y.n.y -- ? nagini

Mar 37a

permaisuri

sense requires: puteri

Mar 10b

s.rmuni

s.r.m.w.n.y

Mar 135a

Sahran

s.h.r.a.n

Mar 55a

sekerba

s.k.r.b.h

Mar 54a

sekerbah

s.k.r.b.h

Mar 36b

sekerbah

s.k.r.b.h

Mar 41a

siluran

s.y.l.w.r.a.n

Mar 14a

syahari

sy.h.a.r.y

Mar 122b

yang

b.a.ng
top