Which language has most words

[Charles 3781]

On 9/7/2020 at 3:30 PM, Area54 said:

Context.

You're correct that "context" can resolve ambiguity.  This is exhibited strikingly in modern English phrasal verbs  - such as "go off".

Suppose one asks the question - what does "go off" mean?  There are many possible answers:

1. "Leave", as in: "I'll go off on holiday";

2. "Explode",  as in: "The bomb will go off";

3. "Start working"; as in: "Your alarm-clock will go off in the morning";

4. "Stop working"; as in: "Your computer will go off if you unplug it";

5. "Become putrid"; as in: "Your milk will go off if you leave it for a month outside the refrigerator";

6. "Stop liking something"; as in: "People like this forum, but if they keep getting hostile responses, they might go off it."

Multiple meanings, distinguished only by context.  In everyday life, the contextual distinctions are obvious.  But is that necessarily so in Science? 

I mean, suppose an Ancient Greek scientist is trying to write a description of his newly-invented steam-turbine, in Greek. And that language doesn't distinguish between "pneuma = steam" and "pneuma = wind".  How will his readers comprehend the significance of the invention?  They might think he's only talking about a wind-mill. 

He could say something like:  "hot pneuma arising from boiling water".  But doesn't such a periphrase confuse thought.  Or,  is it actually more analytical? I dunno.

 

[molbol2000]

I think the number of words is roughly inversely proportional to the expressiveness of the language. Simply put, the worse the language, the more words it contains, because word formation is inflexible

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, molbol2000 said:

I think the number of words is roughly inversely proportional to the expressiveness of the language. Simply put, the worse the language, the more words it contains, because word formation is inflexible

I think the number of posts is roughly inversely proportional to the expressiveness of your posts... 😵

Edited October 19, 2020 by dimreepr

[molbol2000]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I think the number of posts is roughly inversely proportional to the expressiveness of your posts

if all of them explain one thing

or fixed set of things

All languages describe a fixed number of phenomena, and if more words are required to describe them, then the language is less expressive.

Although this is partly due to the clutter of the tongue

[dimreepr]

Just now, molbol2000 said:

if all of them explain one thing

I edited out the subtlety in my last post, just so you'd get it... 😉

[molbol2000]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I edited out the subtlety in my last post, just so you'd get it.

I realized. This is not a valid comparison.

[dimreepr]

Just now, molbol2000 said:

I realized. This is not a valid comparison.

There you go again, more word's.

[molbol2000]

another example: synonyms,  that mainly due to borrowing and mixing of languages, in fact they are superfluous

[dimreepr]

Just now, molbol2000 said:

another example: synonyms,  that mainly due to borrowing and mixing of languages, in fact they are superfluous

OK then... 🖖

It's funny, you can't even understand your own sentence .

[molbol2000]

 

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OK then... 🖖

It's funny, you can't even understand your own sentence .

This example is easy to understand in the counter-example of polysemy. One word in different contexts means different things, respectively, expressiveness increases and vocabulary decreases

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

 

This example is easy to understand in the counter-example of polysemy. One word in different contexts means different things, respectively, expressiveness increases and vocabulary decreases

Rito...

Which word didn't you understand?

[molbol2000]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Which word didn't you understand?

For those who do not understand, I will explain it for the last time. If with the help of a small lexicon it is possible to express the same as with the help of a large one, then a language with a small lexicon is more expressive than one that has a large

 

I think this is clear enough

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

I think this is clear enough

Imagine that...

[Dord]

Syme, a Minitrue lexicologist, has this to say about reducing the size of a vocabulary...

Quote

By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of The Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like Freedom is Slavery when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
(Editorial, Newspeak Dictionary)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak#:~:text=Newspeak is the fictional language,1949)%2C by George Orwell.

Careful what you wish for.