|
Post by Pete on Aug 3, 2008 17:24:37 GMT
Good post, Dave. As for the ABC article, sometimes that type of piece smacks too much of "look at the stupid foreigners" for my taste. I'm not sure ABC quite avoided the danger. (And that use of epicentre made me cringe.) What does this mean? English is now widely accepted as the main global language and up to 250 million Chinese currently study English, whose vocabulary is now approaching one million words. I assume that is doesn't mean that the 250 million Chinese currently studying English each have a vocabulary approaching 1 million words. I think only the Dutch speak English that well!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Aug 3, 2008 21:41:20 GMT
I think it must mean that "English" now has a vocab of about a million words. This sort of claim has been debunked before -- it's almost impossible to decide what to count: is lead and lead one word or two (or three)? Is dog (the noun) and dog (the verb) one word or two? Are dogs and dogged more words, or just variants of dog? What about chemical names? what about words like yea -- we all say it, but is it written yes? Is it the same word as yes, then?
And then we get the usual problems of defining "English". Is bairn an English word? Is ain't?
Hopeless.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Aug 3, 2008 21:41:43 GMT
I seem to recall that best estimates are that most of us recognise about 70,000 stem words and use maybe 12,000.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Aug 4, 2008 8:21:01 GMT
I've probably mentioned before that although Chinese (the written language) has many many thousands of words, it can express most things with a base set of just 1300. Some tabloid newspapers use only those 1300 characters, catering for a low-literacy market.
A long time ago, in a land far, far away, I learned 500 characters - painfully providing me with the ability to read such things as "At eight-thirty last night, in North Point, a 93-year-old woman --------. Although -------, a young man nearby ------------, and he, too, was taken to hospital and died". NEVER THE INTERESTING BITS!
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Aug 6, 2008 16:12:45 GMT
I think it must mean that "English" now has a vocab of about a million words. This sort of claim has been debunked before -- it's almost impossible to decide what to count: is lead and lead one word or two (or three)? Is dog (the noun) and dog (the verb) one word or two? Are dogs and dogged more words, or just variants of dog? What about chemical names? what about words like yea -- we all say it, but is it written yes? Is it the same word as yes, then? And then we get the usual problems of defining "English". Is bairn an English word? Is ain't? Hopeless. Indeed, OED editor at large Jesse Sheidlower agrees.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Aug 7, 2008 20:36:37 GMT
I'll be provocative and suggest that any string of letters (including just one) that can be strung together and then make sense to the reader in a sentence (possibly qualified as "a grammatically correct sentence") should be defined as a word.
On that basis, "run" and "runs" would be two different words.
That, of course, leaves open the question of whether the same string of letters with different meanings is more than one word. I'll opt there for that it isn't (more than one) because I feel that it would then be a code-in-context for separate concepts in mentalese.
And on that basis, "run", verb and "run", noun would only be one word.
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Aug 8, 2008 8:07:46 GMT
You're taking the view, then, Tone, that a word is a written thing, consisting of a pattern of letters.
However, when we talk, surely we use words. And we're quite comfortable that we're using different words when we SAY things like:
We were surprised at the number of passengers whose legs had become number He moped about for a week, after someone stole his moped He lead the class of apprentices, in learning how to solder lead pipes.
I feel, then, that it is the number of different meanings which should be counted. (We might then wonder whether two different words with the same meaning are one ... but your "true synonyms" quest seems to let us off that hook!)
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Aug 8, 2008 8:24:45 GMT
You're taking the view, then, Tone, that a word is a written thing, consisting of a pattern of letters. However, when we talk, surely we use words. And we're quite comfortable that we're using different words when we SAY things like: We were surprised at the number of passengers whose legs had become number He moped about for a week, after someone stole his moped He lead the class of apprentices, in learning how to solder lead pipes. I feel, then, that it is the number of different meanings which should be counted. (We might then wonder whether two different words with the same meaning are one ... but your "true synonyms" quest seems to let us off that hook!) I think I'm with you on this one, Dave M. I would class lead, lead, and lead, (with all the examples given etc) as three separate words. Surely, if the word has a different meaning then it must be a word in itself? If not, I've probably just reduced my number of words by 30%
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 8, 2008 9:13:35 GMT
He lead the class of apprentices, in learning how to solder lead pipes. Perhaps led? He will lead the class of apprentices in learning how to solder lead pipes.
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Aug 8, 2008 9:24:10 GMT
He lead the class of apprentices, in learning how to solder lead pipes. Perhaps led? He will lead the class of apprentices in learning how to solder lead pipes.Perhaps also, Due to his superior multi-tasking abilities, he will lead the class of apprentices in learning how to solder lead pipes whilst holding the dog's lead. That is a question btw, as I'm battling with myself over to lead, and a lead.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Aug 8, 2008 9:41:02 GMT
Vadim,
A question, huh? Well, I think the answer is yes. Lead in your example is correctly used in each case.
I'd like to be in that class, though, to watch the instructor's great dexterity.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Aug 8, 2008 10:14:22 GMT
> Perhaps led?
He WILL lead ...<
Of course, Dave, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Aug 8, 2008 19:29:45 GMT
I agree that words that are spelled the same but have different meanings are different words, in a vocabulary count.
I also feel that each verb should only count as a single word: not just 'run' / 'runs' but also 'ran', 'running', etc. Is that in line with earlier posts?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Aug 8, 2008 20:42:42 GMT
>However, when we talk, surely we use words. And we're quite comfortable that we're using different words when we SAY things like: ...<
I will then add to my original of: That, of course, leaves open the question of whether the same string of letters with different meanings is more than one word. I'll opt there for that it isn't (more than one) because I feel that it would then be a code-in-context for separate concepts in mentalese.
This: That, of course, leaves open the question of whether the same sound with different meanings is more than one word. I'll opt there for that it isn't (more than one) because I feel that it would then be a code-in-context for separate concepts in mentalese.
As a word, written or spoken, it's the same thing. Only the context can place its meaning in mentalese.
(And that is oft taken as evidence that mentalese exists "above" our spoken/written language/s.)
And yes, the declensions are, in my view, different words (which is one of the reasons why pidgins have so fewer words than creoles or fully fledged established languages).
So OK, I've got a different view from that of many others. So OK.
Tone
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Aug 8, 2008 20:59:22 GMT
So OK, I've got a different view from that of many others. So OK. ToneSo are these the same okays or different okays? I'm getting confused!
|
|