Elsewhere this board it was commented, "I read somewhere that German has fewer than a million words whereas English has maybe five times that number."

Five million? If I recall aright, the OED has something like 500,000 entries. But of course that does mean the quote is mistaken. The figure will heavily depend on what you count as a "word". (I think we've beaten this horse quite a bit somewhere else.)

However, on the more general point, is it true that English has (on any reasonable counting methodology) substantially more words than most other tongues? That's my impression, but I can't pin it down.

Yes, it does depend on what you mean by the word word. All its forms? Or just the lemma (or entry form)? Do you count all parts of speech? Love is both a noun and a verb. The origin is the same. Do you count love as one or two words? Last I heard English doesn't have five million words, nor does German have a million. Much less I'd say. And since neither Richard nor I have ever counted the words in English or German, I wouldn't put much stock in what either of us has to say definitively on the subject. What others have had to say about it.

quote:

neither Richard nor I have ever counted the words

Laughing! Yes, I expect that responses here will be based on secondary sources, not on personal counting.

quote:

Five million? If I recall aright, the OED has something like 500,000 entries.

I believe the new edition will have around double that number. But the quote I read spoke not simply of the words in the OED but also specialist medical, scientific and other specialist words, many of which never make the exhalted pages of the OED.

I doubt whether there will ever be a concensus.

Last time we discussed this I mentioned David Crystal's book "The English Language" where he has a chapter on the subject. He puts the figure at anywhere between half a million and two million - once again depending on what you count as a word. It's quite an interesting read.

I have no idea on whether any of the ways of counting would produce a substantially higher for English than other languages.

I have no idea on whether any of the ways of counting would produce a substantially higher for English than other languages.

Or whether a "higher" number means a "better" language. Maybe this thread is an example of language being used in a social manner rather than for communication. I have a new conjugation: I mean, you mumble, he's mute. But seriously, David Crystal is a well-known and learned linguist and academic, so I'm sure nobody (or nobodaddy) round these parts would take his word [sic] for it. Here's a PDF of Crystal's from his website about counting the words in English.

There are pidgins with only a few hundred words which are almost as expressive as a language like English, although certainly more verbose, and not quite as clear. Among linguists, I would imagine that except for classification purposes, vocabulary size is not considered a "measure" of a language.

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
David Crystal is a well-known and learned linguist and academic, so I'm sure nobody (or nobodaddy) round these parts would take his word [sic] for it.

He's also an extremely affable fellow, an erudite and entertaining speaker and one of that rare breed - academics who can make their writing accesible to the man in the street without losing the accuracy of it. I'd recommend reading some of his books.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

Vocabulary-size counting is to language as penis-length measurement is to sexiness.

I have never suggested that it is not possible to communicate perfectly well using a very small number of words. There was a discussion some time ago about Basic English (among whose supporters was Winston Churchill) which allows perfectly adequate communication using fewer than a thousand words -http://ogden.basic-english.org/

I myself have complained on this board about writing that uses complex and arcane words (often used simply to make the writer look clever, in my view). Simple words and simple constructions are the best way to speak and write in most instances.

However, there are time when a meaning can only be properly expressed by using a specialist or rare word and the greater the number of such words there are in a language then the better the chance that there will be one that is precisely correct for a particular application.

In that sense, English, with its large vocabulary, is a better medium for communication than less well-endowed languages.

Pullum's analogy about penis-length is true to a point; it's not what you do with your equipment, it's how you use it that matters. But this is an analogy that can be pushed too far. A good driver in a poor car might be able to get to the end of a journey more quickly and safely than a bad driver in a good car. But if both drivers are of equal skill, then the better car will carry the winner.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
In that sense, English, with its large vocabulary, is a better medium for communication than less well-endowed languages.

If English has a lot of specialist or rare words, it's because conversations on those topics are conducted in English. But that doesn't mean that we need to use English to communicate better. It's not like English has a monopoly on words. There's nothing to prevent other languages from having words on the same topics. In fact I think the number of words is a trivial matter. If the speakers in a speech community want a word to express a certain concept, they'll create one.

I'm surprised that this topic has generated so much heat. We seem to have moved from an objective, factual question ("is it true that English has substantially more words than most other tongues?") to a normative one ("whether a 'higher' number means a 'better' language").

With all respect to those who may disagree, I don't see anything objectionable in the former question.

zmj and Bob, I fully agree with your high assessment of Crystal. I'd love to see his view, but the question I raised is not discussed in the Crystal essay that z cites: it makes no comparison from one language to another.

quote:

Originally posted by wordnerd:


With all respect to those who may disagree, I don't see anything objectionable in the former question.

Nor do I. I think that as a purely theoretical question it's quite an interesting one. I just don't know how to answer it. I personally haven't come across any research on the subject. Maybe zm has, he's much more widely read on lingusitics than I am.

BTW zmj, is there a mistake in your David Crystal link? It doesn't seem to work form me.

Nor for me.

quote:

But seriously, David Crystal is a well-known and learned linguist and academic, so I'm sure nobody (or nobodaddy) round these parts would take his word [sic] for it.

I don't think that's fair, zmj.

quote:

But the quote I read spoke not simply of the words in the OED but also specialist medical, scientific and other specialist words, many of which never make the exhalted pages of the OED.

However, did it include the 84 million chemical substrate words that Scheidlower speaks of? I think Scheidlower's discussion (zmj's link) of the number of words was the most cogent of all.

To answer your original question, Wordnerd, and as others have alluded to here, perhaps it doesn't make any difference which language has the most words. I think most of us agree that the number of words does not equal the quality of the language. Besides that, there are so many variables related to defining precisely which words should be included.

With all respect to those who may disagree, I don't see anything objectionable in [the question "is it true that English has substantially more words than most other tongues?"].

Other than the caveats that Sheidlower, and others, mention, no. But following the citation of a number (without the enumeration criteria) usually comes the "and that's why English is more X" summation.

[the Crystal essay that z cites] makes no comparison from one language to another.

That's because most linguist do not find the comparison of languages on aesthetic, moral, or political grounds meaningful.

is there a mistake in your David Crystal link

Bob, there are two links. One to his website and the other to the article. (It is a PDF and I've loaded it on two different machines.)

I don't think that's fair

Oh, K., I and the person to whom I was referring, know well enough that I wasn't referring to you.

Here's another consideration. There are some native languages in Canada and the States where a word is more like our sentence. In these languages, it is possible to speak of an infinite number of "words", as there are an infinite number of sentences in any language.

Also, the 84M chemical names should hold for any language.

quote:

There are some native languages in Canada and the States where a word is more like our sentence.

Hence the old chestnut about the number of Eskimo words for snow.

quote:

Oh, K., I and the person to whom I was referring, know well enough that I wasn't referring to you.

Well, it sounded as though you meant everyone on our board, and I think most of us are fairly good at critically reading what is posted.

I suppose the 84M chemical names will hold for all languages, but does that mean all technical and scientific jargon and words hold for all languages? I just don't know how you'd ever compare that.

I found an answer, more or less.

• "... it seems quite probable that English has more words than most comparable world languages." - ask Oxford
  
• "Altogether, abut 200,000 English words are in common use, more than in German (184,000) and far more than in French (a mere 100,000). The richness of the English vocabulary, and the wealth of available synonyms, means that English speakers can often draw shades of distinction unavailable to non-English speakers." - Bill Bryson, The Mother Tongue, p.13
  

quote:

Pullum's analogy about penis-length

What an apt name for such a subject!

quote:

Originally posted by wordnerd:

"Altogether, abut 200,000 English words are in common use, more than in German (184,000) and far more than in French (a mere 100,000). The richness of the English vocabulary, and the wealth of available synonyms, means that English speakers can often draw shades of distinction unavailable to non-English speakers." - Bill Bryson, The Mother Tongue, p.13

Well, The Mother Tongue is of course a completely reliable source of information...

Yes, I agree. Much as I love Bryson's writing it doesn't do to rely on it as a sole source of information. His language books and his Brief History of Nearly Everything contain factual errors that I noticed while reading.

The Mother Tongue

Yes, I was amazed at the errors in the first 10 pages or so and gave up reading it.

My favourite error is this one, about runic letters in Old English:

quote:

The first, literally double u, represented the sound "w" as it is pronounced today. The other two represented the "th" sound: ρ (called thorn) and δ (called eth and still used in Ireland.)

There's lots of mistakes here, but "Ireland" instead of "Iceland"!

Of course there is a difference from a printing error and an actual error.

Wikipedia itself has had its problems. Yes, in general it comes out pretty clean, I read from the studies. Yet, 1 in 10 articles having "serious errors of misunderstanding" can be a problem. This is all rationalized by saying, "Well, it's the same with the Britannica." Britannica, like Wikipedia, is a good source for general knowledge. However, it is always best to go to the primary sources. I cannot tell you how many times I've found Wikipedia dead wrong on professional entries I've seen. I do realize there is a mechanism for reporting these, and I suppose I should.

I far prefer Bryson's travel writing to his ventures into science and language.

I will probably get a chance to talk to him next June, when he'll be at the ITT Convention in Grand Canary. So any special questions...

I probably need to, as the qualitative researchers do, bracket my biases. [bias 1: I think Wikipedia is a good source, but because the entries are often not written by the experts in their fields, the accuracy needs to be validated.] [bias 2: I do like Bryson's writing of language.]