There are 23 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Fwd: Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
From: Alex Fink
2.1. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: David McCann
2.2. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Adam Walker
2.3. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Nikolay Ivankov
2.4. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Larry Sulky
2.5. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Tristan
2.6. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Gary Shannon
2.7. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Adam Walker
2.8. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Roger Mills
2.9. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Roger Mills
2.10. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: BPJ
2.11. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: BPJ
2.12. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Padraic Brown
2.13. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Padraic Brown
2.14. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Padraic Brown
2.15. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Gary Shannon
2.16. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: BPJ
2.17. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: MorphemeAddict
2.18. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Dale McCreery
2.19. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Gary Shannon
2.20. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Padraic Brown
2.21. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: taliesin the storyteller
2.22. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: A. da Mek
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Fwd: Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:31 am ((PST))
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:14:57 -0500, J. M. DeSantis <[email protected]> wrote:
>Though, on a side note, to play devil's advocate a bit: If coining new
>words or roots from thin-air, as it were, were not possible, how did
>(naturally) we come up with languages in the first place. Whether, in
>the real world, you believe in the idea of multiple proto's or just one,
>the idea that new words cannot be coined at such an early state in a
>language would mean it would be impossible for a language to even be
>created as the words would have to come from somewhere previously.
Well, yes, but don't imagine that language just sprang into origin one day,
or one millennium! Why would humans have developed the neural underpinnings
of language if they were never using it until one day some switch was
thrown? Rather, the development was gradual. Before the first language
humankind will have had a communicative system that was nearly language but
not quite (fundamentally syntactically limited? incapable of abstraction?
whatever it might be), and presumably most of the words in the first
language were inherited or at least constructed from symbols in this
nearly-language. And so on back to whatever the very first
proto-*communication system* was. This is murky territory, of course (a
banned topic at the Ling Soc Paris!). Something akin to ape calls? Or,
perhaps a system that shifted in mode over the millennia from manual to
spoken? Or ...?
If your legendarium posits ex nihilo creation of loquent species, well, thèn
there is a need for lots of whole-cloth word fabrication at once.
Alex
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:38 am ((PST))
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:35:07 -0500
Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
> My friend forwarded me this, and I participated. It was interesting
> and I thought the list would enjoy participating.
Thanks for sharing. I got 42400. I thought I knew clerisy, but I
checked and found that I didn't. I was floored by hypnopompic,
opsimath, sparge, vibrissae, and williwaw. Now I've learnt 6 new words
in one day.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:00 am ((PST))
You had 42400 and didn t know vibrasae? Maybe I need to rethink useing
that in my novel. If someone with a vocab like yours is missing that
word, then maybe it is too big for 99.9 per cent of readers and 95 per
cent of editors...
On 2/19/12, David McCann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:35:07 -0500
> Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My friend forwarded me this, and I participated. It was interesting
>> and I thought the list would enjoy participating.
>
> Thanks for sharing. I got 42400. I thought I knew clerisy, but I
> checked and found that I didn't. I was floored by hypnopompic,
> opsimath, sparge, vibrissae, and williwaw. Now I've learnt 6 new words
> in one day.
>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Nikolay Ivankov" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:04 am ((PST))
10700. Sad but true. Though a bit more than 9000, an average maximum for a
non-native speaker, it's still not a complement for the one working in
predominantly English-speaking community.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:38 PM, David McCann <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:35:07 -0500
> Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > My friend forwarded me this, and I participated. It was interesting
> > and I thought the list would enjoy participating.
>
> Thanks for sharing. I got 42400. I thought I knew clerisy, but I
> checked and found that I didn't. I was floored by hypnopompic,
> opsimath, sparge, vibrissae, and williwaw. Now I've learnt 6 new words
> in one day.
>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.4. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Larry Sulky" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:39 am ((PST))
Nikolay, as a non-native speaker, your grasp on 10,700 English words is
impressive. (English has too many words anyway! ;-) )
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]>wrote:
> 10700. Sad but true. Though a bit more than 9000, an average maximum for a
> non-native speaker, it's still not a complement for the one working in
> predominantly English-speaking community.
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:38 PM, David McCann <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:35:07 -0500
> > Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > My friend forwarded me this, and I participated. It was interesting
> > > and I thought the list would enjoy participating.
> >
> > Thanks for sharing. I got 42400. I thought I knew clerisy, but I
> > checked and found that I didn't. I was floored by hypnopompic,
> > opsimath, sparge, vibrissae, and williwaw. Now I've learnt 6 new words
> > in one day.
> >
>
--
*Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day I
can hear her breathing. -- Arundhati Roy*
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.5. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Tristan" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:53 am ((PST))
> The website's claim that you go on learning an average of just under a
> word a day until your mid-fifties doesn't at all match my (now
> mid-forties (!)) experience, which has been that once you know lots of
> words it becomes increasingly rare to encounter new ones, and therefore
> increasingly rare to learn new ones (& I get quite excited and
> delighted when I encounter a new word in the wild).
By my reading they don't claim that. They claim that _on average_ the
people they tested continue to learn a little under one word per day. You
just happen to be on the more slowly learning side. The implication I
take from this is that people tend to read more as they get older... or
more specifically, learn more words. But there's an upper bound on how
much someone can read, and eventually you hit it. Are you there?
> Also, that figure of 43,100 seems suspiciously low to me; I'd like to
> see, say, the 75000 most frequent words in the language ordered by
> frequency and check whether around the 45K mark they really do start
> getting mostly unfamiliar.
Note that 43100 isn't words so much as unique dictionary entries. I don't
know how closely you read their nitty-gritty page, but 43100 entries
implies many more than 75000 words expanded.
I got 28800 and 32100, and combined that implies I've a 96ish percent
chance of being between the two.... Though I'm not sure the test is
repeatable (there were a lot of the same words). And I learned a word
between the test (and lots afterwards).
enjoy,
tristan
--
All original matter is hereby placed immediately under the public domain.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.6. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:02 am ((PST))
I agree that English has too many words. While I wouldn't take it as
far as Toki Pona or Ogden's Basic English, I do believe that a fixed,
closed vocabulary of 2,000 to 3,000 words would be plenty for a rich
and expressive language.
--gary
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Larry Sulky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nikolay, as a non-native speaker, your grasp on 10,700 English words is
> impressive. (English has too many words anyway! ;-) )
>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.7. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:22 am ((PST))
2000~3000? I would consider that a straight jacket! But then, I
probably use more than twice that many words in mundane conversation.
I rejoice everytime I meet a new word ~ in any language. Adam
On 2/19/12, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree that English has too many words. While I wouldn't take it as
> far as Toki Pona or Ogden's Basic English, I do believe that a fixed,
> closed vocabulary of 2,000 to 3,000 words would be plenty for a rich
> and expressive language.
>
> --gary
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Larry Sulky <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nikolay, as a non-native speaker, your grasp on 10,700 English words is
>> impressive. (English has too many words anyway! ;-) )
>>
>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.8. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:24 am ((PST))
I just went thru the test again, and still got 41,300.
Words I did not know or recognize: chivvy, fuddle, cenacle (religious term?),
cantle, clerisy, hynopompic, sparge, opsimath (sp?, can't read my own
handwriting....:-(( )
Words I recognized by wasn't sure of meaning (and did not check): sedulous,
captious, funambulist
The list doesn't include any/much flora or fauna especially exotica*, terms
from geography, geology, anthropology, medicine, sexuality etc. etc. and of
course no linguistic jargon (phoneme, morpheme etc.), all of which clutter my
mind.
---------
*of course, those tend to be from foreign langs.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.9. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:07 am ((PST))
From: Adam Walker <[email protected]>
2000~3000? I would consider that a straight jacket! But then, I
probably use more than twice that many words in mundane conversation.
I rejoice everytime I meet a new word ~ in any language. Adam
----------------------------------------------------
I agree. And of course anyone in a profession or trade will need specialized
terms, that could number in the high hundreds if not more--consider some of the
problems us old dogs have with computer terminology ;-((((
On 2/19/12, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree that English has too many words. While I wouldn't take it as
> far as Toki Pona or Ogden's Basic English, I do believe that a fixed,
> closed vocabulary of 2,000 to 3,000 words would be plenty for a rich
> and expressive language.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.10. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:18 am ((PST))
On 2012-02-19 19:02, Gary Shannon wrote:
> I agree that English has too many words. While I wouldn't take it as
> far as Toki Pona or Ogden's Basic English, I do believe that a fixed,
> closed vocabulary of 2,000 to 3,000 words would be plenty for a rich
> and expressive language.
>
The problem is that a *closed* vocabulary *will* become inadequate
sooner rather than later, forcing people to use circumlocations,
and I don't really see the difference from, or advantage over,
derivation. Borrowing *might* be another matter, but in most
languages borrowings which don't really fill a niche have their
day and then fall out of use again. Icelanders use a lot of
'unofficial' borrowings simply because they are on average
several syllables shorter than the official calques --
especially if they are clipped, like _koptri_ 'helicopter'.
> --gary
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Larry Sulky<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nikolay, as a non-native speaker, your grasp on 10,700 English words is
>> impressive. (English has too many words anyway! ;-) )
>>
>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.11. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:21 am ((PST))
(Apologies to Roger who'll get this twice. 'Twas meant for the list.)
On 2012-02-19 19:23, Roger Mills wrote:
> I just went thru the test again, and still got 41,300.
>
> Words I did not know or recognize: chivvy, fuddle, cenacle (religious term?),
> cantle, clerisy, hynopompic, sparge, opsimath (sp?, can't read my own
> handwriting....:-(( )
>
> Words I recognized by wasn't sure of meaning (and did not check): sedulous,
> captious, funambulist
>
> The list doesn't include any/much flora or fauna especially exotica*, terms
> from geography, geology, anthropology, medicine, sexuality etc. etc. and of
> course no linguistic jargon (phoneme, morpheme etc.), all of which clutter my
> mind.
> ---------
>
> *of course, those tend to be from foreign langs.
>
So are all[*] the words you listed above; they are Latin/Greek
w/o French intermediacy. Are English speakers really not
sensitive to the fundamental foreignness of a large part of
their vocabulary? (The last sentence intentionally didn't
contain more than one native English content word, BTW! ;-)
I'm not saying this as criticism, but because I'm genuinely
perplexed. I have a hard time believing that adult speakers
of Germanic languages can't tell Classical/Romance vocab
items apart from Germanic vocab components by their form and
morphology, let alone feel that there are two vocabulary
components, yet I have encountered this too often for this
to be an exception. This is all the more strange as people
normally *don't* coin new words by tacking Romance affixes on
Romance roots, so that one would believe they have some feel
for what goes together and what doesn't.
/bpj
[*]: Except perhaps _fuddle_...
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.12. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:48 am ((PST))
--- On Sun, 2/19/12, Larry Sulky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nikolay, as a non-native speaker,
> your grasp on 10,700 English words is
> impressive.
>
> (English has too many words anyway! ;-) )
Heresiarch! O usques ad aras, let us festinate to hale up the indictee and
there decorticate him with supercilious epithets and excorticate him with
chagrin and mortificatory discountenancements!
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > 10700. Sad but true. Though a bit more than 9000, an
> > average maximum for a
> > non-native speaker, it's still not a complement for the
> > one working in predominantly English-speaking community.
Nonsense! Any of us should be proud to have such command of a second
language! (I think too many Americans anymore have less command of their
native language...)
Padraic
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.13. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:06 pm ((PST))
--- On Sun, 2/19/12, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2000~3000? I would consider that a straight jacket!
Hear hear! Shall we excorticate the lot of em? ;)
> But then, I probably use more than twice that many words in mundane
> conversation.
A knowing fellow, thou!
> I rejoice every time I meet a new word ~ in any language.
How about "dribbings"? -- The last drops of milk drawn from the teat after
milking. Or "cratch"? -- an openwork frame for holding bottles, etc. or
hay for animals or in order to extend the length / storage capacity of
your truck. Or "clarty"? -- sticky, underdone as of batter. Or "knubble"?
-- to wrap anything up shabbily into a wad. Or "mopuses"? -- money. Or
"sosh"? -- to dip and careen in flight. Or "pink and shank"? -- one who
is early to rise and late to bed. Or "shommacks"? -- an untidy, slovenly
fellow. Or "thrave" / "thrave along"? -- a throng of people; to gather in
a mob.
Padraic
> Adam
>
> On 2/19/12, Gary Shannon <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > I agree that English has too many words. While I
> wouldn't take it as
> > far as Toki Pona or Ogden's Basic English, I do believe
> that a fixed,
> > closed vocabulary of 2,000 to 3,000 words would be
> plenty for a rich
> > and expressive language.
> >
> > --gary
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Larry Sulky <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> Nikolay, as a non-native speaker, your grasp on
> 10,700 English words is
> >> impressive. (English has too many words anyway! ;-)
> )
> >>
> >
>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.14. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:12 pm ((PST))
--- On Sun, 2/19/12, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> Are English speakers really not
> sensitive to the fundamental foreignness of a large part of
> their vocabulary?
Indeed not! (And I think this is actually true of other languages as well.)
I don't think most people in the US know that "opossum" is a Native word
any more than they know that "clerical" is Latin.
> (The last sentence intentionally didn't
> contain more than one native English content word, BTW! ;-)
Once we nativise a word, we don't seem to pay much attention to its former
foreignness.
> I'm not saying this as criticism, but because I'm genuinely
> perplexed. I have a hard time believing that adult speakers
> of Germanic languages can't tell Classical/Romance vocab
> items apart from Germanic vocab components by their form
> and
> morphology, let alone feel that there are two vocabulary
> components, yet I have encountered this too often for this
> to be an exception.
Perhaps most people don't really care. What difference does it really make
whether a word comes from Latin or Greek or Old French?
> This is all the more strange as people
> normally *don't* coin new words by tacking Romance affixes
> on
> Romance roots, so that one would believe they have some
> feel for what goes together and what doesn't.
It's all English, so it all goes together! ;))
Padraic
> /bpj
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.15. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:34 pm ((PST))
Well, I AM talking about an ARTLANG, after all, not a natlang. If Toki
Pona can get by with 123 root words I would think 2,000 to 3,000 root
words would be a virtual cornucopia of lexicographic diversity,
especially if some of those 2,000 or so were also usable as
derivational affixes.
Plus, I would assume that if a base noun, for example, also had
adjectival and adverbial forms that those would not count as separate
words. Nor would diminutive endings, nominal adjectives, etc. So the
real working lexicon might be closer to 10,000 or more actual words,
but all based on a closed set of a couple thousand root words.
This is all just half-baked musings anyway.
--gary
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2000~3000? I would consider that a straight jacket! But then, I
> probably use more than twice that many words in mundane conversation.
> I rejoice everytime I meet a new word ~ in any language. Adam
>
> On 2/19/12, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I agree that English has too many words. While I wouldn't take it as
>> far as Toki Pona or Ogden's Basic English, I do believe that a fixed,
>> closed vocabulary of 2,000 to 3,000 words would be plenty for a rich
>> and expressive language.
>>
>> --gary
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Larry Sulky <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Nikolay, as a non-native speaker, your grasp on 10,700 English words is
>>> impressive. (English has too many words anyway! ;-) )
>>>
>>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.16. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:52 pm ((PST))
On 2012-02-19 21:12, Padraic Brown wrote:
>> Are English speakers really not
>> > sensitive to the fundamental foreignness of a large part of
>> > their vocabulary?
> Indeed not! (And I think this is actually true of other languages as well.)
Yes, certainly true of Swedish speakers as well.
I'm not surprised people can't spot Low German loans
(even I can only occasionally!) but all those French
loans with their final stress and funny phonotactics,
and all those give-away Classical affixes? I'm at a
disadvantage in that I no longer remember a time when
I didn't have this sensitivity, so I don't know to what
degree I acquired it by attention to the form of words
or by learning other languages.
> I don't think most people in the US know that "opossum" is a Native word
OTOH I wonder how many think _**opossa_ is a possible plural...
> any more than they know that "clerical" is Latin.
>
BTW I got 29,200 on the test. That's probably inaccurate since
I know a lot more obsole(scen)t(e) -- and Latin! -- words than
most, native or not, while I have holes in current vocab
which the test didn't cater for. Occupational injury.
/bpj
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.17. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:48 pm ((PST))
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Larry Sulky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nikolay, as a non-native speaker, your grasp on 10,700 English words is
> impressive. (English has too many words anyway! ;-) )
>
> No way! We need ALL those words! And more besides.
stevo
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > 10700. Sad but true. Though a bit more than 9000, an average maximum for
> a
> > non-native speaker, it's still not a complement for the one working in
> > predominantly English-speaking community.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:38 PM, David McCann <[email protected]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:35:07 -0500
> > > Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > My friend forwarded me this, and I participated. It was interesting
> > > > and I thought the list would enjoy participating.
> > >
> > > Thanks for sharing. I got 42400. I thought I knew clerisy, but I
> > > checked and found that I didn't. I was floored by hypnopompic,
> > > opsimath, sparge, vibrissae, and williwaw. Now I've learnt 6 new words
> > > in one day.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day I
> can hear her breathing. -- Arundhati Roy*
>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.18. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Dale McCreery" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:10 pm ((PST))
I have a friend working on proto-tsimshianic, and she's down to under 300
roots total in the language family - however those roots have created
other roots, and so on and so forth. At present there are at least 5000
words in the published dictionary, of which only about a hundred are
borrowings from other language families, so definitely a small amount of
roots can produce a lot of words, but it's arguable whether speakers are
aware of the ways in which the words are built from other roots - I know
I'm fvery often completely unaware of where English words come from,
simply because I've never thought about it!
-muskwatch-
Considering that there are something around five thousand words in the
database,
> Well, I AM talking about an ARTLANG, after all, not a natlang. If Toki
> Pona can get by with 123 root words I would think 2,000 to 3,000 root
> words would be a virtual cornucopia of lexicographic diversity,
> especially if some of those 2,000 or so were also usable as
> derivational affixes.
>
> Plus, I would assume that if a base noun, for example, also had
> adjectival and adverbial forms that those would not count as separate
> words. Nor would diminutive endings, nominal adjectives, etc. So the
> real working lexicon might be closer to 10,000 or more actual words,
> but all based on a closed set of a couple thousand root words.
>
> This is all just half-baked musings anyway.
>
> --gary
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 2000~3000? I would consider that a straight jacket! But then, I
>> probably use more than twice that many words in mundane conversation.
>> I rejoice everytime I meet a new word ~ in any language. Adam
>>
>> On 2/19/12, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I agree that English has too many words. While I wouldn't take it as
>>> far as Toki Pona or Ogden's Basic English, I do believe that a fixed,
>>> closed vocabulary of 2,000 to 3,000 words would be plenty for a rich
>>> and expressive language.
>>>
>>> --gary
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Larry Sulky <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Nikolay, as a non-native speaker, your grasp on 10,700 English words
>>>> is
>>>> impressive. (English has too many words anyway! ;-) )
>>>>
>>>
>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.19. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:03 pm ((PST))
Every once in a while I stumble onto the derivation of an English word
that should have been obvious and I kick myself for never having
noticed it. And even knowing that "breakfast" is "break + fast" it
still took me a long time of using it in daily coversation to tumble
to the Spanish "desayunar" as "des + ayunar" where "ayunar" means "to
fast".
--gary
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Dale McCreery <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have a friend working on proto-tsimshianic, and she's down to under 300
> roots total in the language family - however those roots have created
> other roots, and so on and so forth. At present there are at least 5000
> words in the published dictionary, of which only about a hundred are
> borrowings from other language families, so definitely a small amount of
> roots can produce a lot of words, but it's arguable whether speakers are
> aware of the ways in which the words are built from other roots - I know
> I'm fvery often completely unaware of where English words come from,
> simply because I've never thought about it!
>
> -muskwatch-
>
> Considering that there are something around five thousand words in the
> database,
>
>> Well, I AM talking about an ARTLANG, after all, not a natlang. If Toki
>> Pona can get by with 123 root words I would think 2,000 to 3,000 root
>> words would be a virtual cornucopia of lexicographic diversity,
>> especially if some of those 2,000 or so were also usable as
>> derivational affixes.
>>
>> Plus, I would assume that if a base noun, for example, also had
>> adjectival and adverbial forms that those would not count as separate
>> words. Nor would diminutive endings, nominal adjectives, etc. So the
>> real working lexicon might be closer to 10,000 or more actual words,
>> but all based on a closed set of a couple thousand root words.
>>
>> This is all just half-baked musings anyway.
>>
>> --gary
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 2000~3000? I would consider that a straight jacket! But then, I
>>> probably use more than twice that many words in mundane conversation.
>>> I rejoice everytime I meet a new word ~ in any language. Adam
>>>
>>> On 2/19/12, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I agree that English has too many words. While I wouldn't take it as
>>>> far as Toki Pona or Ogden's Basic English, I do believe that a fixed,
>>>> closed vocabulary of 2,000 to 3,000 words would be plenty for a rich
>>>> and expressive language.
>>>>
>>>> --gary
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Larry Sulky <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Nikolay, as a non-native speaker, your grasp on 10,700 English words
>>>>> is
>>>>> impressive. (English has too many words anyway! ;-) )
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.20. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:34 pm ((PST))
--- On Sun, 2/19/12, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't think most people in the US know that "opossum"
> > is a Native word
>
> OTOH I wonder how many think _**opossa_ is a possible
> plural...
Sure, why not... we already have meese! ;))
I've seen possa, possi and posse. Along with possum and possums.
> > any more than they know that "clerical" is Latin.
> >
>
> BTW I got 29,200 on the test. That's probably inaccurate
> since
> I know a lot more obsole(scen)t(e) -- and Latin! -- words
> than
> most, native or not, while I have holes in current vocab
> which the test didn't cater for. Occupational injury.
I think I got in the high 30s or low 40s. I noted a lack of dialect words
and technical words, as others have mentioned. I think one can safely
add 5k to 15k words depending on one's area of expertise and training to
whatever their base number is.
Brain injury? Can't think of many occupational injuries that would cause
one to suffer gaps in their vocabulary, unless it was just a matter of the
injury keeping you from continued contact with your field?
> /bpj
Padraic
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.21. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" [email protected]
Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:47 am ((PST))
On 2012-02-19 02:35, Daniel Bowman wrote:
> http://www.testyourvocab.com
Took this one months and months ago, scored 38500 today. Just proves
that playing fantasy tabletop rpgs does weird stuff to one's vocabulary.
I doubt the definitions I have for some of the words are very mainstream :)
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*spoilerspace*
*carefully picks up the glaive with some bit of legerdemain, checks that
the cuirass haven't been sullied, tightens the laces on the vambraces
and exeunts: time to slay caitiffs*
t.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.22. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "A. da Mek" [email protected]
Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:46 am ((PST))
> English has too many words. While I wouldn't take it as
> far as Toki Pona or Ogden's Basic English, I do believe that a fixed,
> closed vocabulary of 2,000 to 3,000 words would be plenty for a rich
> and expressive language.
For comparison: Esperanto has about 2900 morphemes.
(cca 1730 substantives, 194 adjectives, 63 pronouns, 16 numerals, 739 verbs,
29 adverbs, 34 prepositions, 17 conjunctions,
8 prefixes, 34 suffixes and 11 endings.)
Messages in this topic (32)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
