Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 314 Online version available in : http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id | 2339-1162 (Print) | 2550-1011 (Online) | JURNAL ARBITRER Submission Track A B S T R A C T Received: June 27, 2024 Final Revision: September 03, 2024 Accepted: September 07, 2024 Available Online: September 25, 2024 Kamus Dewan Perdana (KDP) is the largest and most complete dictionary of the Malay language (ML) and is the latest edition of the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP), which targets ML native speakers and non-native speakers who are proficient in using ML. This study aims to identify Arabic loanwords (AL) in KDP and analyse questions of their entry regarding the aspects of etymology, word class, and definition from the perspective of users and researchers by using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) as the methodology. The findings of this study found a total of 2847 entries of AL in KDP, which include 66% labelled Arabic (Ar) and 34% unlabelled. This study also found seven questions regarding AL entries in the KDP from the aspects of etymology, word class, and definition. Three questions arise from the etymological aspect, namely, (1) the inconsistent omission of etymological labelling, (2) the differences in terms of etymological labelling between KDP and Kamus Dewan Edisi Keempat (KDE4), and (3) justification for the source language information of the loanword placed at the end of the entry in the KDP; a question arises from the aspect of word class, which is the inconsistency in word class labelling for AL expression entries; and three questions from the aspect of definition, namely (1) the inaccuracy in the definition of homonymous word variations in KDP, (2) the absence of definition of the AL entries in the KDP and (3) the deletion of AL entry in the KDP. The results of this study serve as user feedback, which contributed to DBP as the body responsible for improving the compilation of KDP as well as other dictionaries such as Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (KBBI), Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (CALD), Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English New Edition (LDCENE), Oxford English Dictionaries (OED), and Concise Oxford English Dictionaries (COED). This improvement will in turn be able to provide complete vocabulary information to the user community, both among native speakers and non-native speakers. Keywords Arabic loanwords, Malay language, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, dictionary, etymology, Kamus Dewan Perdana Correspondence E-mail: indirawati@um.edu.my Article Arabic Loanwords in Kamus Dewan Perdana: Questions of Etymology, Word Class and Definition Noorazlin Abu Bakar¹, Indirawati Zahid2, Wan Zailan Kamaruddin Wan Ali3 1,2Department of Language, Academy of Malay Studies, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 3Department of Aqidah & Islamic Thought, Academy of Islamic Studies, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Under License of Creative Commons Attributioni-Non Commercial 4.0 International.DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.11.3.314-333.2024 I. INTRODUCTION Kamus Dewan Perdana (KDP) (2021) is the largest and most complete Malay language (ML) dictionary produced by the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) as stated on its blurb. The main target users of this dictionary are native speakers of ML and non-native speakers who are proficient in ML. The blurb of this dictionary also states that there are around 7000 etymological information given in the dictionary. This etymological information is prepared by ML etymology experts based on research findings from theses, essays, journals, dictionaries and books involving around 7000 entries of heritage words and loanwords. In KDP, the source language information of a loanword obtained from the Kamus Dewan Edisi Keempat (KDE4) is based on labels such as Ar (Arabic), C (Chinese), Ing (English), Jp (Japanese) and Tm (Tamil) placed at the end entry. KDE4 is a ML dictionary published by DBP since 2005 until 2016 Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 315 before the publication of KDP in 2020 until now. DBP is a statutory body in Malaysia that is given autonomous authority in the development of language and literature. Accordingly, the production of KDP and previous editions of dictionaries such as KDE4 (2005), Kamus Dewan Edisi Ketiga (KDE3) (1994), Kamus Dewan Edisi Baharu (KDEB) (1989) and Kamus Dewan (KD) (1970) are DBP’s efforts in the development of ML by recording ML vocabulary through the dictionary. The compilation of the dictionary is carried out by loading a vocabulary consisting of native ML words as well as loanwords from various source languages that have been absorbed into ML. This effort is based on the fifth goal of its establishment on June 22, 1956, which is to compile and publish a national language dictionary (Karim, 2013). Arabic loanwords (AL) are among the borrowed words included in the ML dictionary produced by DBP. The incorporation of Arabic into Malay was influenced by various factors, particularly Islam. According to Karim et al. (2013), Islam began to take root concurrently with the rise of the Malay Melaka Sultanate in the 13th century. During that period, Malay became a tool for the dissemination of Islam, and its vocabulary rapidly expanded due to the need to express new ideas introduced by Islamic civilization. Islamic teachings and knowledge significantly increased the Malay lexicon, which, according to Za’ba, may have exceeded the number of Sanskrit words (Hassan & Mohd, 1994). Meanwhile, according to Al-Attas (2022), Arabic is the language of Islam, and no language spoken by Muslims remains unaffected by the profound impact of Arabic, whether they have reached a high level of civilisation or not. This directly explains that the ML has been influenced by Arabic. Research on AL in the world’s languages is exhaustive, including phonological, morphological, syntaxis and semantic aspects. The research on AL in other languages, such as Hausa, Bengali, Urdu, Minangkabau, and Indonesian, among others, has been conducted by Danzaki (2015), Hasan (2015), Anwar (2017), Maiza (2017), Julul et al. (2019), Ukhrawiyah (2019), Puspita dan Yusuf (2020), Almarwaey & Ahmad (2021), Ilmiatun (2022), and Hidayati & Prindyatno (2023). Meanwhile, research on AL in ML has been conducted by Jumingan dan Hasbullah (2002), Mansor (2002), Jumingan (2005, 2011), Yusoff (2006), Mansor (2010), Abdullah et al. (2011), Jalaluddin et al. (2012), Toklubok@Hajimaming & Mezah (2013), Lubis (2014), Abas et al. (2019, 2021), Sarudin (2019), Musling (2021), and Zahid et al. (2024). Nonetheless, in line with the current discussion, this literature review only concentrates on the admission of AL in dictionaries. The publication of KDP as the latest ML dictionary in 2020 onwards has been welcomed by language experts as a source for research. Thus far, there are four studies carried out on KDP namely by Hassan (2023, 2024), Collins (2023), and Jaafar et al. (2024). Since this article underscores AL in KDP, this literature review discusses the research discovered from 2023 until 2024 to show the research trends and thus addressing the research gap. Hassan (2023) focuses on a linguistic study based on the corpus used in the production of the dictionary (KDP). Recently, KDP (2020) has utilised the corpus and websites as data sources to capture the usage of the ML, including dialects and loanwords. Accordingly, this study examines the strengths and weaknesses of the corpus as a data source for Malay linguistic studies. The findings highlight issues related to the use of the corpus in the production of the KDP, such as the entries ‘tersepakkan’ and ‘tersepak’, which were found to have no difference in meaning and were both incorrectly categorised as transitive verbs according to Malay grammar. This is because the prefix and suffix combination ‘teR-...-kan’ is not listed as one that forms derived transitive verbs. Therefore, the study suggests that not everything generated from the corpus should be recorded as Malay words, especially when their form is unusual and does not represent the logical meaning (as seen with the use of the ‘teR-...-kan’ affix), and such usage should not be encouraged among ML users. Furthermore, there is no consistency between the ‘teR-...-kan’ affix and the meanings provided by KDP with any major Malay grammar books in Malaysia. However, the findings of this study only highlight a few errors in discussing the issue of corpus usage in the KDP. Meanwhile, in 2024, Hassan focused on the issue of morphology in the KDP, covering word classes, affixes, and the meanings of affixes. The issues identified were discussed using KDE4 (2016), Tatabahasa Dewan Edisi Ketiga (2010), Nahu Melayu Terakhir (2015), and Sintaksis (2006) as the methodology. The findings revealed Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 316 morphological issues with the entries ‘hafalan’, ‘makan’, ‘tersepak’, and ‘tersepakkan’ in the KDP, which were found to be incorrect according to Malay grammar in terms of word class, affixes, and the meanings of affixes. Additionally, the study also identified errors in the loanword ‘tentatif’ in the KDP, particularly concerning its meaning and word class. All these issues were found to be caused by the use of a corpus containing ungrammatical sentences in the production of the KDP. Next, Collins (2023) focused on the review of etymological information in KDP. This study highlights issues related to etymological formatting in the KDP by examining four entries of inherited words (api; air; bini; betina) and two entries of loanwords (loji; baluk). The methodology used involves comparing the etymological format in the Random House Dictionary (1987). The study found that there is no date information provided in the etymological description of each entry, and there is no relevance in using etymological information from Proto-Malayic or Proto-Malay-Polynesian languages in KDP, as a general dictionary does not require the reconstruction of ancient languages. Instead, cognates from languages within the same sub-branch, namely Malay-Javanic languages, should be presented. Additionally, there are errors in the word forms and meanings in the etymological information for the loanword entries. The study also points out that some entries lack etymological information, even though the words have been extensively studied by scholars, such as the entry for ‘api’. Therefore, this study emphasises that KDP should adopt a critical and empirical approach in all lexicographical efforts. The study recommends that DBP implement transparent procedures for material preparation, with continuous review by assistant editors and evaluators handling the contributed information. Lastly, Jaafar et al. (2024) focused on the grammatical aspect of AL in KDP. This study aims to categorise AL based on their word classes and to explain the factors of borrowing, namely cultural borrowing, and core borrowing. The study found that nouns are the most frequently borrowed into Malay, and most borrowed Arabic words fall under cultural borrowing, referring to new objects or concepts that did not previously exist in Malay culture. Additionally, the openness of the ML to borrowing from other languages also shows instances of core borrowing, where AL overlaps with existing words in Malay. However, the study also identified several AL that have been inaccurately categorised by their word class, such as the entries ‘hujah’, ‘muktamad’, and ‘rela’. Therefore, the study suggests that the categorisation of word classes should be based on their usage context in sentences. In summary, it can be concluded that the studies by Hassan (2023, 2024) and Jaafar et al. (2024) focus on grammatical aspects, while Collins’ (2023) research deals with the etymological format in the entries of the KDP. The findings from all these studies also reveal errors in linguistic information concerning specific entries (both native words and loanwords), including word formation, word class, and the etymological information provided in the KDP, leading to various issues and questions. However, these studies do not specifically address issues and questions related to the entries of AL in the KDP. Additionally, earlier studies by Jumingan & Hasbullah (2002), Mansor (2002), Jumingan (2005, 2011), Yusoff (2006), Mansor (2010), Toklubok@Hajimaming & Mezah (2013), Lubis (2014), Abas et al. (2019, 2021), and Musling (2021) were found to have only used earlier dictionaries published before the KDP, such as KDE4, KDE3, and KD in various editions. As a result, these previous studies did not utilise the latest ML dictionaries, unlike this study, which will be conducted using the KDP. Therefore, unlike Hassan (2023, 2024), Collins (2023), Jaafar et al. (2024), and all the other previous research, this study specifically focuses on the entry of AL in KDP in relation to the aspects of etymology, word class, and definition from the perspective of users and researchers. Therefore, a current study needs to be conducted. This study aims to identify AL in KDP and analyse the questions regarding their entry from the aspects of etymology, word class, and definition. This study is due to inconsistency in the entry of AL in KDP, which has caused confusion among native and non-native speakers, as mentioned by Abas et al. (2019, 2021); generally, it could cause confusion for speakers of the two languages, particularly Arabian students who are required to pass the ML to accomplish their studies in Malaysia and Malay students who are studying in Arabian nations. This aligns with the statement by Anis & Arifuddin (2023) that translation tends to be orientated towards the target language and adopts Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 317 (Artis et al., 2019) as shown in Figure 1, is based on Legewie’s discussion (2013) that includes elements of research question, case study, source, hypothesis, and cross-referencing. Figure 1 shows the QCA protocol starting with a research question that is the basis of the research to answer the question of how AL are introduced in KDP. In the first procedure, AL is manually extracted from KDP. This is followed by a second procedure, where the extracted AL is cross- referenced with the Arabic dictionary, Al-Muʻjam Al-Wasīt (MW), for etymological validation. MW is a dictionary published by the Arabic Language Academy in Egypt, which Arabic language students use at intermediate and advanced levels at universities in Egypt. This cross-referencing was done to ensure that AL assimilated into ML is all considerably taken into account in the analysis process. This method of cross-referencing using MW has also been found to be employed by previous researchers such as Mansor (2002), Jumingan (2002), Jumingan (2005; 2011), Mansor (2010), Totlubok@Hajimaming & Mezah (2013), Maiza (2017), Almarwaey & Ahmad (2021), the ideology of domestication. The findings of this study will directly benefit the dictionary publisher by strengthening the compilation of dictionaries over time, in line with its role as a body dedicated to developing ML. This research will provide a detailed scrutiny of problematic entries that cause confusion for both native and non-native users. II. METHOD This study adopts a qualitative approach in its methodology, which is analysing text based on three procedures. First, to extract AL from KDP that are labelled Ar and not labelled Ar to obtain comprehensive data; second, to cross-reference AL that are not labelled Ar to confirm their etymology; and third, to analyse the questions that arise from the AL entries in KDP in terms of etymology, word class and definition. These three procedures apply the qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) approach adapted from the study of Zahid et al. (2024). The QCA allows a new summary to be formulated (Rihoux, 2006), which in the context of this study is related to the issues that arise from the AL entries. The QCA methodology framework Figure 1. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 318 Musling (2021), and Zahid et al. (2024). Cross- referencing was further done against five other authoritative sources to validate the etymology of AL entries not labelled ‘Ar’ in this study. These five sources are the Malay-English Dictionary (MED) by Wilkinson (1959), Kamus Bahasa Melayu (KBM) by Winstedt (1960), Arabic Loan-Words in Malay (ALM) by Beg (1979), Loan-Words in Indonesian and Malay (LIM) by Jones (2008), and KDE4 (2015) by DBP, all of which recorded etymological sources in the compilation of their respective dictionaries. This was followed by the third procedure: identifying the etymological labelling, word class, and definition of the AL obtained from KDP, which led to the analysis based on hypotheses. At the end of the QCA protocol, a discussion based on questions from the aspects of etymology, word class, and definition of the AL entries is carried out, and the findings of the study are put forward. RESULT AND DISCUSSION The extraction of AL in KDP found a total of 2847 entries including 1886 entries (66%) labelled Ar and 961 entries (34%) unlabelled as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. The total of AL in KDP Based on Figure 2, AL in KDP are divided into two parts, namely words labelled Ar which are found to be as much as 66 percent representing 1886 entries, while there are 961 entries which are unlabelled words and this represents 34 percent of the total. In addition, the findings of this study identified questions from the aspect of etymology, word class and definition. There are three questions of etymology namely (1) the inconsistent omission of etymological labelling, (2) the differences in terms of etymological labelling between KDP and KDE4, and (3) justification of the information on the source language of the loanword placed at the end of the entry in the KDP; a question from the aspect of word class is about the inconsistency in word class labelling for AL expression entries while three questions from the aspect of definition comprises of (1) the inaccuracy in the definition of homonymous word variations in KDP, (2) the absence of definition of the AL entries in the KDP, and (3) the deletion of AL entry in the KDP. These questions are the subject of this study as presented in the following discussion. Findings from the Etymological Aspect There are three questions from the etymological aspect, namely (1) the inconsistent omission of etymological labelling; (2) the differences in terms of etymological labelling between KDP and KDE4; and (3) justification for the source language information of the loanword placed at the end of the entry in the KDP. 1. Inconsistent omission of etymological labelling Omitting etymological labelling refers to loanword entries in KDP whose source language as etymological information for the words are not labelled. This is based on the statements found in the introduction of KDE3 and KDE4 as follows: In relation to the labelling of loanwords, some of the IB and Ar labels found in the last edition of the Kamus Dewan have been omitted in this third edition. This was made considering that the words in question have been so widely used in the Malay language, especially in Malaysia, that they have become integrated and considered a part of the Malay language. For this third edition, only Arabic loanwords that still display specific meanings, such as in the field of Islam, for example Allahumma, asar or words whose meaning is not generally known, for example alwah, then the Ar label is added or maintained. (KDE3, 1994, p. xxiii) Kamus Dewan Edisi Keempat has removed some loanword labels that were previously Jw (Javanese), IB (Dutch Indonesia), Id (Indonesian) and Ar (Arabic) because the word is thought to have been absorbed and established in its usage in Malaysia. (KDE4, 2005, p. xviii) The statements of KDE3 and KDE4 clearly state that the omission of the Ar etymological label is based on the assumption that the loanwords have been absorbed, established and widely used in ML in Malaysia, thus giving implications of integration in ML. On the other hand, loanwords that still display a specific meaning such as in the field of religion or words that are less known to the general public will retain the Ar label. Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 319 In this case, the methods used in determining the omission of Ar label of loanwords are not specified. Therefore, the omission of the label has raised questions when three types of inconsistencies in the Ar labelling of AL entries in the KDP were found as follows: a. Inconsistent Ar labelling for all 30 entries of Arabic letter This inconsistency refers to the Arabic letter entries in the KDP that are not uniform in their etymological labelling, i.e. there are some entries that have an Ar label and some that have no labelling as in Table 1. Based on Table 1, only eight of the total 30 Arabic letter entries are labelled Ar in KDP, namely “alif¹”, “ba¹”, “jim”, “ra”, “ain¹”,”lam”, “nun” and “lam -alif”. This raises the question of whether the eight entries of Arabic letters labelled Ar are not stable and not integrated into ML like the remaining 22 Arabic letters? The inconsistency in the labelling of Ar on the entire entry of Arabic letters raises questions because all these letters have actually been used in ML. This is evidenced by the Jawi writing system that uses Arabic letters in many of its letters. Table 1. Inconsistency in Ar labelling for all 30 entries of Arabic letter in KDP. No. Arabic Letter Entry in KDP Labelled Ar Page 1 ا alif¹ ✓ 61 2 ب ba¹ ✓ 165 3 ت ta¹ Ø 2199 4 ث sa¹ Ø 1921 5 ج jim ✓ 904 6 ح ha¹ Ø 717 7 خ kha Ø 1102 8 د dal Ø 470 9 ذ zal Ø 2525 10 ر ra ✓ 1792 11 ز zai Ø 2524 12 س sin¹ Ø 2111 13 ش syin Ø 2197 14 ص sad¹ Ø 1924 15 ض dad Ø 461 16 ط ta² Ø 2199 17 ظ za Ø 2524 18 ع ain¹ ✓ 27 19 غ ghain Ø 684 20 ف fa¹ Ø 589 21 ق qaf Ø 1790 22 ك kaf Ø 935 23 ل lam ✓ 1224 24 م mim Ø 1464 25 ن nun³ ✓ 1544 26 ه ha² Ø 717 27 ال lam-alif ✓ 1225 28 و wau² Ø 2514 29 ء hamzah Ø 735 30 ي ya Ø 2520 Note: ✓ (labelled) Ø (unlabelled) Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 320 b. Inconsistent Ar labelling for all 25 entries of the names of messengers and prophets This inconsistency refers to entries of the names of messengers and prophets in the KDP that are not uniform in their etymological labelling, i.e. there are some entries with Ar labels and some without the labelling as in Table 2. Based on Table 2, only two of the total 25 entries of the names of messengers and prophets are labelled Ar, namely “Adam” and “Isa”. This raises two questions, the first of which is whether the two entries of the names of messengers and prophets labelled Ar are not stable and do not blend in the ML like the remaining 23 entries of the names of messengers and prophets? Secondly, do these two entries have meanings that are less known to the general public, so they were given the Ar label compared to the other 23 entries that were not labelled Ar? The inconsistency in the Ar labelling on all 25 entries in Table 2 has caused confusion because all 25 names of messengers and prophets have already been widely used in ML, especially in the Islamic education syllabus both in secular education schools and religious education as it is compulsory to know and study the 25 messengers and prophets. c. Inconsistent Ar labelling for homonymous entries from the same Arabic word stems This inconsistency refers to the six homonymous entries from Arabic word stems in KDP that shows the non-uniformity of etymological labelling, that is, some of them have Ar labels and some do not. On the other hand, there are two homonymous entries from Arabic word stems in KDP that is consistent in Ar labelling and these are shown in Tables 3 and 4 respectively. Table 2. Inconsistency in Ar labelling for all 25 entries of the names of messengers and prophets in KDP. No. Entries of the Names of Prophets and Messengers Labelled Ar Page 1 Adam ✓ 11 2 Idris Ø 801 3 Nuh¹ Ø 1543 4 Hud¹ Ø 785 5 Saleh Ø 1939 6 Ibrahim¹ Ø 797 7 Lut Ø 1371 8 Ismail Ø 844 9 Ishak Ø 842 10 Yaakub Ø 2520 11 Yusuf¹ Ø 2523 12 Syu’ib Ø 2197 13 Ayub Ø 162 14 Zulkifli Ø 2529 15 Musa Ø 1502 16 Harun Ø 748 17 Daud Ø 487 18 Sulaiman Ø 2168 19 Ilias Ø 812 20 Iliasaʿ Ø 812 21 Yunus¹ Ø 2523 22 Zakaria Ø 2524 23 Yahya Ø 2520 24 Isa ✓ 841 25 Muhammad¹ Ø 1487 Note: ✓ (labelled) Ø (unlabelled) Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 321 Based on Table 3, the six entries of AL that are homonymous in KDP, namely “ahli¹”, “ahli²”, “buruj1”,”buruj²”, “hasab¹” and “hasab²” show the inconsistency in Ar labelling even though they are from Arabic word stems. The first example, the entry “ahli¹”, does not have Ar labelling but the entry “ahli²” has Ar labelling while both stem from the word “األَْهل” in BA. The first polyseme in the definition of the entry “ahli¹” is found to be the same as the first polyseme in the definition of “األَْهل” which refers to family or relatives. Meanwhile, the two polysemes in the definition of “ahli²” are found to be the same as the third polyseme in the definition of “األَْهل” which refers to a person who is an expert or skilled in a certain field. In the second example, the entry “buruj¹” has no Ar labelling but the entry “buruj²” has an Ar labelling while both stem from the word “البُْرج” in BA. The definition of the entry “buruj¹” shows similarities with the fourth polyseme in the definition of “البُْرج” which refers to stars. Meanwhile, the definition of the “buruj²” entry shows similarities with the first polyseme in the definition of “البُْرج” which refers to a fortress or wall for defence. Similarly in the third example, the entry “hasab¹” has Ar labelling, but the entry “hasab²” has no labelling while both stem from the same word ”in BA. The definition of the entry “hasab¹ ”الَحَسُب“ shows similarities with the first polyseme in the definition of “الَحَسُب” which refers to estimation or proportion. Meanwhile, the definition of the entry “hasab²” also shows similarities with the second polyseme in the definition of “الَحَسُب” which refers to someone of noble descent. All these three examples shown will cause confusion when each homonymous entry is found to have inconsistent etymological labelling even though each one is from the same Arabic word stem. In this case, the definition of the entry “ahli²”, “buruj²” and “hasab¹” in ML does not show a meaning that is not well known to the general public so that it is necessary to maintain its Ar labelling Table 3. Inconsistency in Ar labelling for homonymous entries from Arabic word stems in KDP No. Entry and definition in KDP Labelled AR Page Entry and definition in MW 1 ahli¹ 1 individual who are members of a family, community and so on. 2 individuals, associations and others who officially join organisations, institutions and others. Ø 25 األَْهل 1 family or relatives. 2 wife. 3 a person who is an expert in something. 4 resident. 5 entitled/deserving. Mentioned in the welcome speech: Ahlanwasahlan: “Your arrival is welcomed like a family member and your presence has been made easy and brings us joy”. 2 ahli² 1 clever or really skilled in a matter or field. 2 people who are skilled or have deep knowledge in a matter or field. ✓ 25 3 buruj¹ Astronomy A group of stars that are close to each other in one area of the sky formed into certain formations such as geometry and animals. Ø 357 البُْرج 1 fortress or fort. 2 houses built on top of the city wall. 3 corners. 4 the name of one of the twelve constellations (stars) in the sky. 5 tall buildings rising to the sky (towers). 6 houses for pigeons. 4 buruj² classic wall built from stone, earth and so on that surrounds an area to defend against enemy attacks. ✓ 357 5 hasab¹ estimation or calculation; count. ✓ 749 الَحَسُب 1 the value of something, its amount or rate. 2 the glory or superiority of a person from generation to generation.6 hasab² (about a person) of noble descent and good manners. Ø 749 Note: ✓ (labelled) Ø (unlabelled) Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 322 Table 4. Consistency in Ar labelling for homonymous entries from Arabic word stems in KDP No. Entry and definition in KDP Labelled AR Page Entry and definition in MW 1 bab¹ 1 part of a book consisting of several pages, which are usually given numbers or titles. 2 about something. ✓ 165 البَاُب 1 door to enter the house. 2 something made of wood or something else as a cover for the entrance to the house. 3 a part in the book that puts together problem/matter of similar nature.2 bab² door. ✓ 165 Note: ✓ (labelled) Table 5. Inconsistency in Ar labelling for Arabic expression entries. No. Entry in KDP Labelled Ar Page 1 Ahlanwasahlan ✓ 25 2 alhamdulillah ✓ 60 3 Allahuakbar ✓ 65 4 Allahumma ✓ 65 5 ammabakdu ✓ 83 6 assalamualaikum ✓ 146 7 astaghfirullah ✓ 146 8 asyhaduallaillahaillallah ✓ 147 9 auzubillah ✓ 155 10 bismillah ✓ 305 11 bismillahi Ø 305 12 bismillahirrahmanirrahim Ø 305 13 bissawab ✓ 305 14 insya-Allah ✓ 833 15 lailahaillallah ✓ 1215 16 lillah, lillahi ✓ 1324 17 marhaban ✓ 1415 18 masya-Allah ✓ 1423 19 minalaidinwalfaizin ✓ 1465 20 nauzubillah, nauzubillahi ✓ 1524 21 radiallahuanha Ø 1795 22 radiallahuanhu ✓ 1795 23 rahimahullah ✓ 1799 24 Sallallahualaihiwasallam ✓ 1940 25 Subhanahuwataala ✓ 2158 26 Subhanallah Ø 2158 27 waalaikumussalam Ø 2501 28 walimatulurus Ø 2507 29 wallahi ✓ 2507 30 wallahuaklam ✓ 2507 31 warahmatullahi wabarakatuh Ø 2509 32 wassalam ✓ 2513 Note: ✓ (labelled) Ø (unlabelled) Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 323 as the justification stated in the KDE3 introduction section. The confusion that occurs becomes more significant when two homonymous entries from Arabic word stems show consistent and uniform Ar labelling in their entries as in the following Table 4. Table 4 shows two homonymous entries, namely “bab¹” and “bab²” from the Arabic word stem, i.e. “البَاُب” which are both consistently or uniformly labelled Ar in KDP. The definition of entry “bab¹” shows similarities with the third polyseme in the definition of “البَاُب”, while the definition of entry “bab²” is found to be the same as the first and second polysemes in the definition of “البَاُب”. This is completely contrary to the homonymous entries in Table 3 which portrays the inconsistency in Ar labelling despite originating from Arabic word stem. This creates confusion to KDP users, whether knowledgeable in Arabic or not. d. Inconsistent Ar labelling of Arabic expression entries An expression is a set of words that has a specific meaning used in conversation and writing (KDP, 2021, p. 2475). Accordingly, the Arabic expression refers to the Arabic word order that has a specific meaning used in conversation and writing. This inconsistency refers to the entry of the Arabic expression in KDP which is not uniform in its etymological labelling, i.e. there are some entries with Ar labels and some without labelling as in Table 5. Table 5 shows 25 Ar labelled entries and seven unlabelled entries out of a total of 32 Arabic expression entries in KDP. This finding raises the question, that is, are there only these seven Arabic expressions (bismillahi, bismillahirrahmanirrahim, radiallahuanha, Subhanallah, waalaikumussalam, walimatulurus and warahmatullahi wabarakatuh) that have been established in ML such that the Ar labels are not necessary? A significant confusion can be seen in the entry “assalamualaikum” as shown in example 6 where an Ar label is given as its etymological information, while the counter-match of this expression, which is the entry “waalaikumussalam” in example 27 is not given the Ar label. In this regard, the entry “assalamualaikum” has also been established in ML and the Ar label should also be deleted like the entry “waalaikumussalam”. Meanwhile, the next question is whether the 25 entries of the Arabic expressions that have the Ar label are words that have special meanings or words whose meanings are not well known to the general public such that the etymological labelling is maintained? Overall, the issue of the inconsistency in etymological labelling in KDP was also found to occur in the arrangement of loanwords in Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (KBBI) (2001). Whereas the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (CALD) (2013) and the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English New Edition (LDCENE) (2009) do not provide any etymological labels on loanword entries, making it difficult for dictionary users to find etymological information. Although these dictionaries are not specifically etymological dictionaries, this information should still be provided, even if not in detail. As in ML dictionary, this issue needs to be addressed by DBP as the body responsible for the production of KDP which is the latest reference for users. Labelling of etymological information is very important because it will affect the effectiveness of using a word. This is because, language users cannot use a word effectively if they do not know its origin as stated in Webster’s New World Dictionary (1970) quoted from Ahmad (2015) below. Etymology has been made a strong feature of this dictionary because it is believed that insight into the current usage of a word can be gained from full knowledge of the word history and that a better understanding of language generally can be achieved from knowing how word are related to other word in English and to word in other Indo European languages. (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1970) This statement in the Webster’s New World Dictionary describes the importance of etymological information that affects the use of a word which can only be obtained by knowing fully the history of the word. Accordingly, in order to ensure that language users can use AL effectively, it is best to label the Ar etymology of all AL entries in the KDP. 2. Differences between KDP and KDE4 in etymological labelling The analysis of the study also found that there are differences between KDP and KDE4 in etymological labelling. The following Table 6 displays the difference in etymological labels in the “istima” entries. Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 324 The two “istima” entries in Table 6 are sourced from KDP and KDE4 respectively, which are the authoritative sources of reference. A question will arise among users when there is a difference in etymological information in KDP and KDE4 which are both ML dictionaries published by DBP. In this regard, KDP sets the etymology of the entry “istima” from the Portuguese word meaning ‘appreciation, respect’, while KDE4 puts the Ar label on the entry “istima” as it is Arabic word. Cross referencing the entry “istima” in MW found the word “استمع” which carries the meaning ‘to hear’ which is derived from the word “سمع” which means ‘hear’. In this case, users of both KDP and KDE4 dictionaries will become more confused when they do not find the correct etymological information for the word. Cross-referencing the “istima” entry was carried out in LIM and found the homonymous “istima¹” and “istima²” entries, each of which has different etymological information as follows. (LIM, 2008, p. 130) Based on the search in LIM, the entry “istima¹” refers to a Portuguese loanword, while the entry “istima²” refers to an AL. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the entry “istima” in KDP and KDE4 which has the same definition, that is “consideration, opinion and so on which is good” matches with the entry “istima¹” in LIM which is borrowed from a Portuguese word as its etymology. Therefore, the entry “istima” in KDE4 labelled Ar is incorrect and needs to be corrected by DBP so that users obtain accurate etymological information. Therefore, it is best that DBP provides both source language information for the entry in KDP as presented in LIM. The issue of incorrect information regarding the etymology of loanword entries in the etymological notes by DBP has also been identified by Collins (2023), specifically in the entry for ‘baluk,’ which does not originate from the word ‘faluca’ in Portuguese, but actually comes from the word ‘bark’ in Dutch. This justification is explained in terms of the phoneme change from [r] to [l], and the insertion of a vowel between consonants is not surprising when the word ‘bark’ is borrowed into ML and changes to ‘baluk’. Conversely, it would be surprising if the word ‘baluk’ were borrowed from ‘faluca’ because typically the phoneme [f] would be adjusted to the Malay pronunciation, changing to the phoneme [p]. Additionally, loanwords from Portuguese that end with the phoneme [a] are usually retained, such as the words mentega, gereja, meja, and kadera. Errors in the etymological origins of loanwords in a dictionary have also been found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) of the second edition, as discussed by De La Cruz- Cabanillas (2008), who found that the loanword ‘bonze’ does not originate from the French word but from a Chinese word. Overall, the errors in the etymological information of the loanword ‘istima’ identified in this study and the loanword ‘baluk’ found in Collins (2023) need to be given proper attention by DBP. These two cases highlight DBP’s weakness in not conducting thorough research on the loanword entries included. Therefore, it is recommended that DBP cross-reference with authoritative sources as done in the cross-referencing using LIM for the validity of the etymology of the word ‘istima’ and also analyse the changes in word formation that typically occur in Malay, as Collins (2023) did to explain the etymology of the loanword ‘baluk’. 3. Justification for the source language information of the loanword placed at the end of the entry in KDP The analysis found that the source language information of the loanword placed at the end of the entry in the KDP will cause confusion among users unlike the KDE4. The following Table 7 displays the relevant entries. Table 6. Etymological label differences between KDP and KDE4 Source Entry and Definition Etymological Label KDP (2021, p. 846) istima archaic noun consideration, opinion etc which is good. ORIGIN: [from Por estima ‘appreciation, respect’] Por (Portuguese) KDE4 (2015, p. 591) istima Ar archaic consideration (opinion etc) which is good. Ar (Arabic) Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 325 Table 7. Differences between KDE4 and KDP in position of etymological labels No. Entry and Definition in KDE4 (2015) Entry and Definition in KDP (2021) 1 akhbar 1. Ar (plural for news) news, gazette; 2. newspapers, daily; ... (p. 24) akhbar noun 1 newspaper: ... 2 company that publishes newspapers: ... 3 news or gazette: ... mengakhbarkan transitive verb [passive: announced, published] publish (news, advertisement etc.) in the newspaper: ... perakhbaran noun matters or activities related to newspapers: ... pengakhbaran noun the act of announcing news, advertisements, etc.: ... ORIGIN: [from Ar akhbār (plural for khabar ‘news, information’)]. (p. 43) 2 dalal 1. Ar middleman, sales representative, agent; ...; 2. a fee (usually a percentage) paid to an agent, a salesperson who runs a business or who provides a service, commission: ... (p. 306) dalal noun 1 payment paid by the seller to the salesperson or agent, usually as much as a certain percentage of the sales value of goods or services; commission: ... 2 people who act as intermediaries between sellers and buyers; sales representative; agent; ... ORIGIN: [from Ar dallāl] (p. 470) 3 jasad 1. body or torso (human) that exists (as opposed to spirit): ...; 2. Ar body or torso that is no longer alive: ...; 3. (Physics) something that exists that can be held or seen: ... (p. 612) jasad noun 1 human body or torso that can be held or seen: ... 2 human body or torso that is no longer alive: ... 3 Physics something that exists that can be held or seen: ...; berjasad intransitive verb has a body: ... sejasad figurative adjective same as in one body: ... ORIGIN: [from Ar jasad] (p. 874) Table 7 shows examples of three entries, namely, “akhbar”, “dalal” and “jasad” with differences in etymological label positions between KDE4 and KDP. KDE4 shows the position of the Ar label only on certain polysemes that are referred to as borrowings from the source language. This can make it easier for dictionary users to obtain specific borrowing information. However, in KDP, the Ar label is located at the end of the entry definition, causing confusion and questions for dictionary users, i.e. are all the polysemes in the definition of the referenced entry from the source language? For example, the Ar labelling of the entry “akhbar” in KDE4 is only given for the meaning of the first polyseme to refer to a specific borrowing of the definition. Meanwhile, the second polysemous meaning that is not given the label Ar refers to the semantic changes that occur when borrowed into ML, which is the meaning that has been added by ML based on the corpus. This differs from the Ar labelling of the “akhbar” entry in the KDP given at the end of the entry definition. Labelling Ar at the end of the entry definition in KDP is found to be less helpful for users to obtain specific etymological information as in KDE4. This, on the other hand, has raised questions for users, that is, are all the polysemous meanings in the definition of this “akhbar” entry completely borrowed from BA? The same applies to the entries “dalal” and “jasad,” as shown in Table 7. However, these kinds of issues are not only found in KDP but also found in Concise Oxford English Dictionary (COED) (2006), which also includes the etymological source information of the word at the end of the entry definition. Findings from the Aspect of Word Class There is only one question with regard to word class which is the inconsistency in word class labelling for entries of Arabic expression in KDP. 1. Inconsistency in word class labelling for entries of Arabic expression This inconsistency refers to Arabic expression entries in KDP that are not uniformly labelled for their word class, i.e. there are some entries that have word class label and some that have no labelling as in Table 8. Table 8 shows that 25 entries have specific word class labelling and seven unlabelled entries out of a total of 32 entries of Arabic expression in KDP. KDP explains that the labelling of the word class is as follows: Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 326 Table 8: Inconsistency in word class labelling for BA expression entries No. Entry in KDP Word Class Label Page 1 Ahlanwasahlan Noun 25 2 alhamdulillah Ø 60 3 Allahuakbar Noun 65 4 Allahumma Noun 65 5 ammabakdu Conjunction 83 6 assalamualaikum Ø 146 7 astaghfirullah Noun 146 8 asyhaduallaillahaillallah Noun 147 9 auzubillah Ø 155 10 bismillah Noun 305 11 bismillahi Noun 305 12 bismillahirrahmanirrahim Noun 305 13 bissawab Exclamation 305 14 insya-Allah Ø 833 15 lailahaillallah Noun 1215 16 lillah, lillahi Noun 1324 17 marhaban Exclamation & Noun 1415 18 masya-Allah Noun 1423 19 minalaidinwalfaizin Ø 1465 20 nauzubillah, nauzubillahi Ø 1524 21 radiallahuanha Noun 1795 22 radiallahuanhu Noun 1795 23 rahimahullah Noun 1799 24 Sallallahualaihiwasallam Noun 1940 25 Subhanahuwataala Noun 2158 26 Subhanallah Noun 2158 27 waalaikumussalam Noun 2501 28 walimatulurus Noun 2507 29 wallahi Exclamation 2507 30 wallahuaklam Exclamation 2507 31 warahmatullahi wabarakatuh Ø 2509 32 wassalam Noun 2513 Note: Ø (unlabelled) Each division of meaning is given a word class label based on the context of its use and guided by the Tatabahasa Dewan Edisi Ketiga. However, some entries, for example to the middle, to the side; social conventions, e.g. hello, sayonara; proper nouns for personality and acronyms, as well as words that carry the meaning of being used as emphasis, for example hurry up, are not given a word class. (KDP, 2021, p. xxiv) In relation to that statement, the entry of the Arabic expression along with its definition that is not given word class labelling is shown in the Table 9. Based on Table 9, as many as seven entries of Arabic expressions that are not given word class labelling, namely “alhamdulillah”, “assalamualaikum”, “auzubillah”, “insyallah”, “minalaidinwalfaizin”, “nauzubillah, nauzubillahi” and “warahmatullahi wabarakatuh”. The justification by KDP that these entries do not have word class labels is because they are either social convention expression; proper nouns for personality and acronyms; as well as word that is used to show emphasis. However, in the seventh example, which is the entry “warahmatullahi wabarakatuh”, kvs is stated in its definition to refer to social convention. Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 327 Table 9. Entries of Arabic expression in KDP that do not have word class labelling No. Entry Definition Word Class Label Page 1 alhamdulillah all praise to God. This expression is usually uttered to express gratitude to God. Ø 60 2 assalamualaikum peace and prosperity to all. This word is usually said by fellow Muslims when meeting or parting. Ø 146 3 auzubillah I take refuge in God. This phrase is usually said as a prayer for protection from evil, disaster, satanic interference, etc. Ø 155 4 insya-Allah if God permits. This expression is usually said when someone promises to do something. Ø 833 5 minalaidinwalfaizin may you be included in the group of people who return to human nature, that is free from sin, and achieve success. This expression is usually said on Hari Raya Aidilfitri and Hari Raya Aidiladha. Ø 1465 6 nauzubillah, nauzubillahi we seek refuge in God. This expression is usually spoken when hearing bad news, witnessing an accident, etc. Ø 1524 7 warahmatullahi wabarakatuh kvs and with the grace of God and His blessings. This expression is used after the word assalamualaikum. Ø 2509 Note: Ø (unlabelled) kvs (social convention) This has raised questions from the perspective of dictionary users. Firstly, apart from the entry “warahmatullahi wabarakatuh”, the entries “assalamualaikum” and “waalaikumussalam” can also be categorised as social conventions (kvs) such as “hello” and “sayonara”, but why are these two entries not given the kvs label in their definition like the entry “warahmatullahi wabarakatuh”? On the other hand, the entry “waalaikumussalam” is labelled as a noun (refer to example 27, Table 8), while the entry “assalamualaikum” is not given any label. Secondly, there is no ‘kvs’ label in the definition of the six Arabic expressions (alhamdulillah, assalamualaikum, auzubillah, insya-Allah, minalaidinwalfaizin, and nauzubillah, nauzubillahi), and this has raised the question of are all these words used as emphasis such that they are not given word class label? According to Ahmad (2015), including word class in the compilation of a dictionary is important in describing the meaning of an entry, identifying the change in word class caused by the addition of affixes to an entry and also in determining whether an entry is homonymous or polysemous. Ahmad (2015) also asserted that not all language users can understand and recognise word classes, therefore, dictionaries should be able to help dictionary users recognise word classes. As such, it is appropriate to label the entire entry with word class to facilitate users and avoid any confusion. Findings from the Aspect of Definition The question from the aspect of definition consists of three main points, namely (1) the inaccuracy in the definition of homonymous word variations in KDP; (2) the absence of definition for the AL entries in the KDP; and (3) the deletion of AL entry in the KDP. 1. The inaccuracy in the definition of homonymous word variations in KDP This refers to the entry “gibas” and its variation “kibas” in KDP which are homonymous as in Table 10. Table 10 shows the entry “gibas” in KDP which only gives its variation as a definition. In this case, the definition of “gibas” should be referred to the word “kibas” on a different page. Cross- referencing of the “kibas” entry in the KDP found two homonymous entries, namely, “kibas¹” and “kibas²”. This is even more confusing when both the entries “kibas¹” and “kibas²” referred to do not state “gibas” in their respective definitions as Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 328 Table 10. Inaccurate variation of “kibas” in the definition of “gibas” for references”kibas¹” and “kibas²” which are homonymous in KDP Entry “gibas” Variation of entries referred to gibas var kibas (KDP, 2021, p. 685) kibas1 transitive verb see mengibas; berkibas; intransitive verb to move left to right or up down: ... (KDP, 2021, p. 1111) kibas2 noun a kind of sheep in the Arab country that has long, thick and curly wool and a big tail; sheep; kibas sheep. (KDP, 2021, p. 1112) shown in Table 10. Accordingly, the user is unable to ascertain which entry is referred to as a variation of the word “gibas”. Therefore, to deal with the uncertainty, the user must refer to a different dictionary, which is KDE4, an edition before KDP. The “gibas” entry in KDE4 is specified as follows: gibas sheep that has a big tail, sheep (KDE4, 2015, p. 472) The “kibas” entry in KDE4 is defined directly without specifying the variation to the “kibas” entry as in KDP. This allows users to obtain direct and accurate definition. 2. Absence of definition of AL entries in KDP The analysis carried out found AL in KDP which do not have definitions for their entries. This can be seen in the loanwords “tafahus” and “tahbis” as entries. On the other hand, definitions are found in subentries that have undergone grammatical processes, i.e. addition of affixes to the words as in Table 11. Based on Table 11, the loanword “tafahus” in KDP as an entry is not defined directly, instead Table 11. “tafahus” and “tahbis” entries in KDP and KDE4 No. KDP (2021) KDE4 (2015) 1 tafahus transitive verb see mentafahus; mentafahus transitive verb [passive: ditafahus, tafahus] examine or investigate (something) carefully: ... mentafahusi transitive verb [passive: ditafahusi, tafahusi] mentafahus ORIGIN: [from Ar tafaḥḥus] (p. 2204) tafahus Ar careful research, inspection, search; mentafahus examine carefully, research, search: ...; mentafahusi mentafahus. (p. 1565-1566) 2 tahbis mentahbiskan transitive verb [passive: ditahbiskan, tahbiskan] to sanctify or bless (someone or something) according to the needs of the Christian religion: ... pentahbisan noun matter or act of consecrating: ... [ORIGIN: from Ar taḥbīs ‘pentahbisan, pentaksidan’] (p. 2209) tahbis Ar sanctified (for the needs of Christianity); mentahbiskan purify or bless (for the needs of Christianity): ...; pentahbisan about mentahbiskan. (p. 1569) the definition is only found through the sub- entry “mentafahus”. Similarly with the loanword “tahbis” as an entry in the KDP which is also not directly defined, instead the definition is only found through the sub-entries “mentahbiskan” and “pentahbisan”. This differs from the definition of loanwords “tafahus” and “tahbis” in KDE4. This situation should not happen because KDP is the latest and most complete ML dictionary compared to previous editions such that users need not cross- reference other dictionaries to obtain the desired information. 3. Deletion of AL entry in KDP The analysis of the study also found that there is an AL entry in KDE4 that has been deleted in KDP, which is the “murahik” entry, as follows: murahik Ar children who are close to puberty (KDE4, 2015, p. 1057) The elimination of the entry “murahik” in the KDP has raised the question, that is, what is the justification for the elimination of this entry in the KDP? Technically, each new compilation of the dictionary will increase the number of vocabulary Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 329 words recorded as entries. However, this situation is different in KDP. According to De Schryver & Prinsloo (2000a), the prevalent factor that a word is removed from a dictionary is due to three things, namely the lack of the number of word frequencies found in the corpus, the limited space available for the dictionary and also the designated target users. In this regard, KDP does not show that its dictionary space is limited because KDP is the largest dictionary and its target users are native and non-native speakers of ML. Meanwhile, KDP does not specify any measure for the frequency of a word in the corpus used in its compilation. Overall, the issues or questions presented from the aspects of etymology, word class and definition in the discussion of this study should be taken into account by DBP as the body responsible for solving all issues found for improving the compilation of entries in dictionary, especially in the future publication of KDP. This is so because, the implications of the findings of this study are that users will be sceptical and feel less confident about referring to KDP as the largest and most complete ML dictionary at this time. Typically, users, both among native and non-native speakers of ML, will look for the latest dictionary, which is KDP as a reference to obtain complete vocabulary information, regardless of whether they are proficient or have yet to master ML. In fact, public users believe that anything contained in the dictionary published by DBP is correct and can be used in academic writing (Hassan, 2023), as it is the authority institution of ML. This is in line with Viera (2017) who thinks that knowledge of vocabulary of a language is a necessity to provide students with a wider ability to produce structured written texts and also contribute to the understanding of speech. Viera (2017) also stated that recent developments in second and foreign language acquisition show the needs of a solid foundation in vocabulary knowledge among non-native speakers as in addition to acquiring grammar and pronunciation as well as to be successful language users in any academic environment regardless of the level of proficiency or skill of students in grammar and pronunciation. Finally, DBP should get user feedback during the production process of a dictionary such that it can be produced perfectly. This is as suggested by De Schryver & Prinsloo (2000b) that feedback from target users is very necessary in the compilation of any dictionary at present times and should be obtained while the compilation of the dictionary is still in process. This can be achieved by launching several small-scale parallel dictionaries that allow informal and formal target user feedback to be fed immediately into the main dictionary compilation process. Such simultaneous feedback is not only useful in the organisation of the macrostructure but also provides useful information for improvement at the microstructural level. De Schryver & Prinsloo (2000b) also asserted that this can avoid feedback being obtained too late and resulting in improvements that can only be made in the next edition. All the issues found in this study likely arise from the initial stages of dictionary compilation, namely, inadequate, and unsystematic planning. This is also, as stated by Ibrahim (2004), that the discipline of dictionary compilation involves various processes that require clear work strategies in terms of its philosophy of compilation; comprehensive work procedures; as well as high dedication and skills among its compilers. Therefore, obtaining user feedback during the compilation process to produce a dictionary is a good work strategy and a comprehensive procedure in creating an ideal dictionary. Additionally, all the issues present in this study may also arise due to a lack of high skills among the compilers or lexicographers. Such a situation occurs because one of the macro challenges in Malay lexicography in the 21st century is that the profession of dictionary compilers is considered less popular compared to other careers (Ibrahim, 2010), which has affected the preparation of highly potential lexicographers. IV. CONCLUSION This study not only found unlabelled AL, but also put forward seven questions from the aspect of etymology, word class and definition that were found to confuse KDP users. Questions from the etymological aspect are, (1) inconsistent omission of etymological labelling of 30 entries of Arabic letters, 25 entries of names of messengers and prophets, six entries of homonyms from Arabic word stems and 32 entries of Arabic expressions; (2) differences between KDP and KDE4 in etymological labelling; and (3) justification for the source language information of the loanword placed at the end of the entry in the KDP. Next, there is a question with regards to the word class aspect, which is the inconsistency in word class labelling for Arabic expression entries. Finally, questions Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 330 REFERENCES Abas, N. A., Abusahyon, A. S. E, & Sahad, M. N. (2019, July 29-30). Semantically divergent meaning of Arabic loanwords in the Malay language. [Paper presentation]. The 5th International Conference on Linguistics, Literature and Culture (ICLLIC 2019). George Town, Penang, Malaysia. https://ssrn. com/abstract=3887831 Abas, N. A., Sahad, M. N., & Abusahyon, A. S. E (2021). Distorted and limiting semantically divergent translated meaning of Arabic loanwords in the Malay language as educational instrument. Arab World English Journal for Translation & Literary Studies, 5(4) 109-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.24093/ awejtls/vol5no4.9 Abdullah, I., Ahmad, Z., Abdullah, I. H., Ahmad, Z., & Hassan, A. T. (2011, March 30-31). Perantauan bangsa Arab ke alam Melayu: Kesannya terhadap percambahan kata pinjaman Arab-Melayu. [Paper presentation]. International Seminar on Merantau: Imagining Migration in the Malay World, Frankfurt, Germany. http://discol.umk.edu.my/id/eprint/8995 Ahmad, I. (2004). Perkembangan perkamusan Melayu: Suatu analisis dari sudut tipologi formal. Jurnal Bahasa, 4(3), 533-553. https://jurnal.dbp.my/index.php/jurnalbahasa/article/view/8618 Ahmad, I. (2010). Cabaran perkamusan Melayu pada abad ke-21. In Abdul Wahid, P. R., Idris, Z., Jaafar, S., Ahmad, I., & Tengku Mohd Ali, T. I. M (Eds.), Cabaran semasa pengajian Melayu (pp. 14-27). Akademi Pengajian Melayu. Ahmad, I. (2015). Asas ilmu perkamusan Melayu. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Al-Attas, S. M. N. (2022). Islam dalam sejarah dan kebudayaan Melayu. Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Almarwaey, A. O., & Ahmad, U. K. (2021). Semantic change of hijab, halal and Islamist from Arabic to English. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature® The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 27(2), 161-176. http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2021-2702-12 Anis, M. Y., & Arifuddin, A. (2023). Comparative Analysis of Arabic-Indonesian and Arabic-English from the aspect of definition are (1) the inaccuracy in the definition of homonymous word variations in KDP; (2) the absence of definition of the AL entries in the KDP; and (3) the deletion of AL entry in KDP. The findings and questions discussed in this study serve as user feedback that not only contributes to DBP but also to other dictionaries such as KBBI, CALD, LDCENE, OED, and COED. These findings are very beneficial, especially in improving the compilation of the dictionary in the future edition. The improvement that will be carried out will in turn provide complete information of vocabulary towards the user community, both among native speakers and non-native speakers. ETHICS STATEMENTS The authors have read and followed the ethical requirements for publication in Jurnal Arbitrer and that the current work does not involve human subjects, animal experiments, or any data collected from social media platforms. CREDIT AUTHOR STATEMENT Noorazlin Abu Bakar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, and Visualization; Indirawati Zahid: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision, Project administration, and Funding acquisition; Wan Zailan Kamaruddin Wan Ali: Validation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The work is supported financially by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia via Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS/1/2021/SSI0/ UM/02/11)(FP031-2021). DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 331 Translation Techniques in The Al-Hikam Aphorism. JURNAL ARBITRER, 10(1), 51–65. https://doi. org/10.25077/ar.10.1.51-65.2023 Anwar, F. (2017). Semantic change in language borrowing: The case of Arabic borrowed words in Urdu. Language in India, 17(2), 108-124. http://www.languageinindia.com/feb2017/ farheenurdusemanticsfinal.pdf Artis, A., Bartel-Radic, A., & Haidar, H. (2019). Quantifying qualitative case study research with QCA: Implications and process of the method from the example of a study on inter organizational collaboration. In A. Bartel-Radic (Ed.) Innovative and alternative research methods in economics and business administration (pp.28-45). EIKV. Beg, M. A. J. (1979). Arabic loan-words in Malay: A comparative study (2nd ed.). University of Malaya Press. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (4th ed.). (2013). Cambridge University Press. Collins, J. T. (2023). Kamus dewan perdana: Tinjauan maklumat etimologi. Melayu: Jurnal Antarabangsa Dunia Melayu, 16(2), 209-238. https://doi.org/10.37052/jm.16(2)no3 Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th ed.). (2006). Oxford University Press. Danzaki, M. A. (2015). Semantic change in Arabic loanwords in Hasua. In Ghazali, R., Ismail, M. R., Arshad, S. R., & Ahmad, C. W. S. B. C. W. (Eds.), E-proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Arabic Studies and Islamic Civilization, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (ms. 448-458). De La Cruz-Cabanillas, I. (2008). Chinese loanwords in the OED. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 44, 253- 274. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Isabel-De-La-Cruz-Cabanillas/publication/270272032_ Chinese_Loanwords_in_the_OED/links/54a3decc0cf256bf8bb1bcc1/Chinese-Loanwords-in-the- OED.pdf De Schryver, G. M., & Prinsloo, D. J. (2000a). Electronic corpora as a basis for the compilation of African-language dictionaries, Part 1: The macrostructure. South African Journal of African Languages, 20(4), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2000.10587437 De Schryver, G. M., & Prinsloo, D. J. (2000b). Dictionary-making process with ‘simultaneous feedback’ from the target users to the compilers. In Ninth EURALEX International Congress (pp. 197-209). Hassan, H. (2023). Kajian linguistik bersumberkan korpus. Kekuatan dan kelemahannya. PENDETA, 14(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.37134/pendeta.vol14.1.fa.2.2023 Hassan, H. (2024). Kamus Dewan Perdana: Persoalan dan penjelasan. Melayu: Jurnal Antarabangsa Dunia Melayu, 17(1), 107-124. https://doi.org/10.37052/jm.17(1)no5 Hasan, M. (2015). Semantic change of words entered into another language through the process of language borrowing: A case study of Arabic words in Bengali. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 1375-1390. http://grdspublishing.org/PEOPLE/people.html Hassan, A. & Mohd, A. (1994). Bahasa Melayu untuk maktab perguruan. Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd. Hidayati, A., & Prindyatno, A. A. (2023). Perubahan makna kata serapan bahasa Arab dalam bahasa Indonesia (Kajian ilmu semantik). AliF: Arabic Language in Focus, 1(1), 6-11. Ilmiatun, N. J. (2022). Perkembangan makna bahasa Arab. Diwan: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra Arab, 14(2), 133-143. https://doi.org/10.15548/diwan.v14i2.826 Jaafar, M. F., Zahid, I., & Abu Bakar, N. (2024). Taksonomi kata pinjaman Arab-Melayu dari aspek gramatikal. Issues in Language Studies, 13(1), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.33736/ils.5773.2024 Jalaluddin, N. H., Sarudin, A., & Ahmad, Z. (2012). Peluasan makna alim: Analisis semantik kognitif. GEMA OnlineTM Journal of Language Studies, 12(2), 457-473. https://ir.upsi.edu.my/files/ docs/2020/1780_1780.pdf Jones, R. (2008). Loan-words in Indonesian and Malay. KITLV Press. Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 332 Julul, A. A. H., Rahmawati, N. M., Sartini, N. W., & Kwary, D. A. (2019). Semantic adaptations of the Arabic loanwords in the Indonesian language. Mozaik Humaniora, 19(2), 135-147. https:// repository.unair.ac.id/124625/ Jumingan, M. F. (2005, June 6-7). Kata pinjaman Arab dalam Kamus Dewan Edisi Ketiga: Satu analisis semantik. [Paper presentation]. Persidangan Antarabangsa Leksikologi dan Leksikografi Melayu, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Jumingan, M. F. (2011). Ketepatan makna kata pinjaman Arab dalam Kamus Dewan. In Othman, M. A., & Bakar, H. N. (Eds.), Prosiding Kongres Antarabangsa Bahasa dan Budaya Jilid II, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei (ms. 78-89). Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Jumingan, M. F., & Hasbullah, M. (2002). Kata serapan Arab dalam bahasa Melayu: Analisis semantik. In Musanif, A. M., Isin, R@S., & Hassan, H. (Eds.), Monograf Bahasa, Sastera dan Budaya Melayu (ms. 165-176): Jabatan Bahasa Melayu, FBMK Universiti Putra Malaysia. Kamus besar bahasa Indonesia (3rd ed.). (2001). Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. Kamus dewan. (1970). Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Kamus dewan edisi baharu. (1989). Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Kamus dewan edisi ketiga. (1994). Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Kamus dewan edisi keempat. (2005). Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Kamus dewan edisi keempat. (2015). Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Kamus dewan perdana. (2021). Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Karim, N. S. (2013). Sepintas lalu perkamusan Melayu. Akademi Pengajian Melayu. Karim, N. S., Onn, F, M., Musa, H., & Mahmood, A. H. (2013). Tatabahasa Dewan Edisi Ketiga. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Legewie, N. (2013). An introduction to applied data analysis with qualitative comparative analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14(3), 1-45. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-14.3.1961 Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English New Edition. (2009). Pearson Education Limited. Lubis, M. B. (2014). Kata serapan Arab dalam bahasa Melayu: Perubahan dari segi ejaan Jawi dan makna. Pertanika Journal of MAHAWANGSA 1 (1), 43-59. https://persatuan.upm.edu.my/dokumen/ JPMWS_Mahawangsa_Vol_1_(1)_Jun_2014.pdf#page=51 Maiza, Z. (2017). Kata pinjaman bahasa Arab dalam bahasa Minangkabau. FUADUNA: Jurnal Kajian Keagamaan dan Kemasyarakatan, 1(2), 208-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.30983/fuaduna.v1i2.428 Majmaʻ al-Lughah al-ʻArabīyah Majma. (2011). al-Muʻjam al-Wasīt. Maktabah al-Shuruq al-Duwaliyya. Mansor, I. (2002). Kata pinjaman bahasa Melayu daripada bahasa Arab (A-M): Kajian bandingan dari aspek penggunaan berdasarkan Kamus Dewan dan al-Mu’jam al-Wasit [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Mansor, W. M. S. A. W (2010). Entri agama berlabel “Ar” dalam Kamus Dewan: Satu analisis semantik [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Universiti Malaya. Musling, M. N. (2021). The semantic change in Arabic loan words in Malay language: Types and reasons. AL- ‘ABQARI, Journal of Islamic Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(1), 244-263. https:// doi.org/10.33102/abqari.vol24no2.306 Puspita, D., & Yusuf, K. (2020). Sketching the semantic change of Jahanam and Hijrah: A corpus based approach to manuscripts of Arabic-Indonesian Lexicon. Arabi: Journal of Arabic Studies, 5(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.24865/ajas.v5i1.246 Rihoux, B. (2006). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research. International Sociology, Noorazlin Abu Bakar / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024) 333 21(5), 679–706. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0268580906067836 Sarudin, A. (2019). Semantik dan Data korpus: Kajian polisemi kata serapan bahasa Arab dalam korpus klasik. In N. S. Karim, N. Jamaludin & A. Sarudin (Eds.), Data korpus dalam kajian linguistik (ms. 147-178). Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Totlubok@Hajimaming, P., & Mezah, C. R. (2013, July 3-4). Perubahan makna kata pinjaman Arab: Satu penelitian dalam Kamus Dewan. [Paper presentation]. 4th International Conference of Foreign Languages, Melaka, Malaysia. Ukhrawiyah, F. (2019). Perubahan makna kosakata bahasa Arab yang diserap ke dalam bahasa Indonesia. Al-Ma’rifah: Journal of Arabic Culture, Language and Literature, 16(2), 132-139. https://core. ac.uk/download/pdf/290086405.pdf Viera, R. T. (2017). Vocabulary knowledge in the production of written texts: A case study on EFL language learners. Revista Tecnológica-ESPOL, 30(3), 89-105. https://rte.espol.edu.ec/index.php/ tecnologica/article/view/628 Wilkinson, R. J. (1959). A Malay-English dictionary. Macmillan & Co LTD. Windstedt, R. O. (1960). Kamus bahasa Melayu. Maricon & Sons. Yusoff, M. A. (2006). Perkataan Arab dalam bahasa Melayu: Satu tinjauan dari aspek Semantik. Jurnal Usuluddin, 23, 239-254. https://ejournal.um.edu.my/index.php/JUD/article/view/4257/2103 Zahid, I., Abu Bakar, N., Wan Ali, W. Z. K., & Jaafar, M. F. (2024). Pembangunan Prototaip: Peluasan Makna Kata Pinjaman Bahasa Arab dalam Bahasa Melayu. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities (S1): 51-85. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.32.S1.03