Yes, only Romance languages are legitimate to use expressions like "sine qua non". English must recover its Germanic ancestry .
Does anyone like the English Language?
<<It will still have 4,000 words. With 4,000 words, you can create compounds, but they'll still be made of the same 4,000 stinking words. Can anyone imagine English with only 4,000 words and odd inexpressive intonation? It would be awful, and it would ruin the English language, which is already beautiful the way it is. But I know most of you guys can imagine such a weird English: it's just the kind of English spoken by ESL Asian Learners who still have to improve. >>
4000 is alot. The spoken language and most prose has a very limited vocabulary, and doesn't sound restricted.
Consider the fact daily newspapers (such as the NYT), typically use under 1500 distinct words in the whole paper.
4000 is alot. The spoken language and most prose has a very limited vocabulary, and doesn't sound restricted.
Consider the fact daily newspapers (such as the NYT), typically use under 1500 distinct words in the whole paper.
<<
Consider the fact daily newspapers (such as the NYT), typically use under 1500 distinct words in the whole paper. >>
On one day maybe, but which 1500 words will it use the next day? Surely they wont be all the same ones? Out of the 1500 words, there will probably be 1200 which will show up every day and the other 300 will be uncommon words taken from a huge stockpile, and might show up anywhere between once a week, once a year or once a decade.
Consider the fact daily newspapers (such as the NYT), typically use under 1500 distinct words in the whole paper. >>
On one day maybe, but which 1500 words will it use the next day? Surely they wont be all the same ones? Out of the 1500 words, there will probably be 1200 which will show up every day and the other 300 will be uncommon words taken from a huge stockpile, and might show up anywhere between once a week, once a year or once a decade.
<<4000 is alot. The spoken language and most prose has a very limited vocabulary, and doesn't sound restricted.
Consider the fact daily newspapers (such as the NYT), typically use under 1500 distinct words in the whole paper.>>
Huh? Yes, I agree that 4000 is enough in many situation, but I think I heard that most written English is made up of something like 7500 words, and an educated native speaker has a passive vocabulary of 20,000 words, but then it depends how you define "one" word.
Newspapers definitely don't just use 1500 words...
Just as an example, 3,000 is the number of words marked as "important to learn" in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, and they are just the basic ones. You can check it out online:
http://www.oup.com/elt/catalogue/teachersites/oald7/oxford_3000/oxford_3000_list?cc=global
That's 3000 dictionary entries, and words like "banana" or "toddler" are not even included.
I just noticed there's a new feature too:
http://www.oup.com/elt/catalogue/teachersites/oald7/oxford_3000/oxford_3000_profiler?cc=global
It lets you check how many words in a piece of text you paste there are part of the Oxford 3000 list. And well, it is amazing, I pasted an entire article from UsaToday, and it returned that 83% of its words was in the Oxford 3000.
Then I guess 4000 are really enough, but I still think you need much more for technical or narrative English.
Consider the fact daily newspapers (such as the NYT), typically use under 1500 distinct words in the whole paper.>>
Huh? Yes, I agree that 4000 is enough in many situation, but I think I heard that most written English is made up of something like 7500 words, and an educated native speaker has a passive vocabulary of 20,000 words, but then it depends how you define "one" word.
Newspapers definitely don't just use 1500 words...
Just as an example, 3,000 is the number of words marked as "important to learn" in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, and they are just the basic ones. You can check it out online:
http://www.oup.com/elt/catalogue/teachersites/oald7/oxford_3000/oxford_3000_list?cc=global
That's 3000 dictionary entries, and words like "banana" or "toddler" are not even included.
I just noticed there's a new feature too:
http://www.oup.com/elt/catalogue/teachersites/oald7/oxford_3000/oxford_3000_profiler?cc=global
It lets you check how many words in a piece of text you paste there are part of the Oxford 3000 list. And well, it is amazing, I pasted an entire article from UsaToday, and it returned that 83% of its words was in the Oxford 3000.
Then I guess 4000 are really enough, but I still think you need much more for technical or narrative English.
"Yes, only Romance languages are legitimate to use expressions like "sine qua non". English must recover its Germanic ancestry ."
I agree, but exactly where ARE some of the original Germanic words? What about about replacing the "-tion" words? I wouldn`t even know where to begin.
I agree, but exactly where ARE some of the original Germanic words? What about about replacing the "-tion" words? I wouldn`t even know where to begin.
There's nothing wrong with 'tion' words because those are so common in English and accepted. There is a problem with using completely ridiculous unadapted Latinate expressions like "sine qua non". Most people won't even know what it means, and won't even be able to guess. It is totally unjustifiable to use something like this, the only people I can see using this are writers in a university philosophy department who think more of themselves than one could possibly imagine.
Someone said: “It will still have 4,000 words. With 4,000 words, you can create compounds, but they'll still be made of the same 4,000 stinking words. Can anyone imagine English with only 4,000 words and odd inexpressive intonation? It would be awful, and it would ruin the English language, which is already beautiful the way it is. But I know most of you guys can imagine such a weird English: it's just the kind of English spoken by ESL Asian Learners who still have to improve.”
This question seemed one of the mostly asked questions in every forum. The answer is from the study of semantics. From Aristotle, he believed there is one basic word as substance. All other word was coming from it. But Leibniz believe there were around few hundred words could be classified as fundamental words or semantic primitives. All the rest words were coming from those semantic primitives. From the five thousand years’ experience of China, it found there should be around 3,000 words (or Hanzi) as the fundamental words. Yet the question is the Chinese language didn’t using its pronunciation system fully. For this reason, I reckon the really fundamental word for the future language could be less than this number.
Besides, there is an existing English dictionary that uses only five thousand basic words to explain 100,000 words. When we analyse the meaning of a word we may found, each new word were explained by other words that happened before this new word appeared. That is to say some simpler words have the power to explain the rest complex words. These frequently happened words are the core vocabulary. Without them our language will not exist.
This question seemed one of the mostly asked questions in every forum. The answer is from the study of semantics. From Aristotle, he believed there is one basic word as substance. All other word was coming from it. But Leibniz believe there were around few hundred words could be classified as fundamental words or semantic primitives. All the rest words were coming from those semantic primitives. From the five thousand years’ experience of China, it found there should be around 3,000 words (or Hanzi) as the fundamental words. Yet the question is the Chinese language didn’t using its pronunciation system fully. For this reason, I reckon the really fundamental word for the future language could be less than this number.
Besides, there is an existing English dictionary that uses only five thousand basic words to explain 100,000 words. When we analyse the meaning of a word we may found, each new word were explained by other words that happened before this new word appeared. That is to say some simpler words have the power to explain the rest complex words. These frequently happened words are the core vocabulary. Without them our language will not exist.
Someone said, “4000 is alot. The spoken language and most prose has a very limited vocabulary, and doesn't sound restricted.
Consider the fact daily newspapers (such as the NYT), typically use under 1500 distinct words in the whole paper.”
Can you tell me, if 1,500 words are enough, why the ancestors of English speaker invent more than one million words? Do you think they were stupid?
Consider the fact daily newspapers (such as the NYT), typically use under 1500 distinct words in the whole paper.”
Can you tell me, if 1,500 words are enough, why the ancestors of English speaker invent more than one million words? Do you think they were stupid?
Darras said: “As many have pointed out, English's sine qua non is the fact that it has more vocabulary than any other language, derived from a very broad range of sources. Plus, it has many helpful grammatical rules which preclude excessive inflections and aid to developing a host of useful words from simple roots by adding suffixes and prefixes.”
I reckon, the English plural is some time a trouble maker. Without it, we can still express ourselves clearly. The question is that the‘s’ is inconvenient in some expression. 1.23 apples comparing with 0.23 apple, are they different things? 1.000001 dollars, we put ‘s’, while 0.9999 dollar we don’t. Besides this, if a children don’t know what is 1.0001 percent he won’t know how to express the ‘s’ properly. What if the question of a teacher is: log7.8+sin46/tg7=? Voltage(s) Should he use the ‘s’ or not? What about -1.2 and -0.4? Further more, if a teacher asks his student: tell me, R+S is greater than one (feet foot) or less than one (feet foot)? Any word he uses would reveal the answer to his student.
I reckon, the English plural is some time a trouble maker. Without it, we can still express ourselves clearly. The question is that the‘s’ is inconvenient in some expression. 1.23 apples comparing with 0.23 apple, are they different things? 1.000001 dollars, we put ‘s’, while 0.9999 dollar we don’t. Besides this, if a children don’t know what is 1.0001 percent he won’t know how to express the ‘s’ properly. What if the question of a teacher is: log7.8+sin46/tg7=? Voltage(s) Should he use the ‘s’ or not? What about -1.2 and -0.4? Further more, if a teacher asks his student: tell me, R+S is greater than one (feet foot) or less than one (feet foot)? Any word he uses would reveal the answer to his student.
Johnny said: “Huh? Yes, I agree that 4000 is enough in many situation, but I think I heard that most written English is made up of something like 7500 words, and an educated native speaker has a passive vocabulary of 20,000 words, but then it depends how you define "one" word.”
But my plan is looking for a language that after you know 4000 basic word, you can understand and use more than one million words. The slogan is “learning less knowing more.” I think the plan would affect our education system deeply.
But my plan is looking for a language that after you know 4000 basic word, you can understand and use more than one million words. The slogan is “learning less knowing more.” I think the plan would affect our education system deeply.
Spoken English is not bad. Its the written form with all the different sounds for the same letters and different letters for the same sounds and all the rules and exceptions to the rules and exceptions to the exceptions to the rules! (Do a search for "Simple phonetic alphabet)
<<The question is that the‘s’ is inconvenient in some expression. 1.23 apples comparing with 0.23 apple, are they different things? 1.000001 dollars, we put ‘s’, while 0.9999 dollar we don’t.>>
Really? According to who? Most people use the plural in such cases, from my experience.
Really? According to who? Most people use the plural in such cases, from my experience.
Cheng-Zhong Su, you're not building a strong case for overhauling the English language. If you have trouble with the plural forms of English words, I'm sorry, but native speakers do not.
If you think English would be a better language if we reduced the number of words and made up the rest by combining two or more words into one, you couldn't be more mistaken. If it works in Chinese, and I'm not familiar enough with the language to know for sure, that's great, but I don't think there is a native English speaker anywhere who would wish for the same to be true for English.
The only thing about English which needs reform is our spelling system, not because it's too hard to learn, but because far too many people don't feel it necessary to do so fully. I would support the government in bringing about such change, even though I find English spelling to be beautiful, as it would be best for the population as a whole.
If you think English would be a better language if we reduced the number of words and made up the rest by combining two or more words into one, you couldn't be more mistaken. If it works in Chinese, and I'm not familiar enough with the language to know for sure, that's great, but I don't think there is a native English speaker anywhere who would wish for the same to be true for English.
The only thing about English which needs reform is our spelling system, not because it's too hard to learn, but because far too many people don't feel it necessary to do so fully. I would support the government in bringing about such change, even though I find English spelling to be beautiful, as it would be best for the population as a whole.
<<The only thing about English which needs reform is our spelling system, not because it's too hard to learn, but because far too many people don't feel it necessary to do so fully.>>
I'm sorry but no spelling reform, no matter how simple it makes English orthography, is going to change this problem. Spanish has one of the most simple systems in the world, but one look at a Spanish language internet forum would lead you to believe it is among the hardest. If English is simplified people will just find new ways to get it wrong.
I'm sorry but no spelling reform, no matter how simple it makes English orthography, is going to change this problem. Spanish has one of the most simple systems in the world, but one look at a Spanish language internet forum would lead you to believe it is among the hardest. If English is simplified people will just find new ways to get it wrong.
Matthew said:
“Cheng-Zhong Su, you're not building a strong case for overhauling the English language. If you have trouble with the plural forms of English words, I'm sorry, but native speakers do not.”
I think you mean the adult native speaker. For the children, they could even know what is a sin75 or log87, how can they know the number? Another question is what is your opinion of without the plural ‘s’? Does it cause mistake?
Matthew said: “If you think English would be a better language if we reduced the number of words and made up the rest by combining two or more words into one, you couldn't be more mistaken. If it works in Chinese, and I'm not familiar enough with the language to know for sure, that's great, but I don't think there is a native English speaker anywhere who would wish for the same to be true for English.”
Above, some one has said that in the world any language is changing. That is true. Of course the native speaker doesn’t familiar with the compound words’ system but you could not say that after fifty year’s time, the English is still insisting the unit or synthetic words’ system.
Matthew said: “The only thing about English which needs reform is our spelling system, not because it's too hard to learn, but because far too many people don't feel it necessary to do so fully. I would support the government in bringing about such change, even though I find English spelling to be beautiful, as it would be best for the population as a whole.”
That is true. I remember that Bernard Shaw had set a prize when he was dying that would award to some one who invent the right correct letters for pronouncing system for English. It had been invented and people found that it reduced the pages of a book. I know the Chinese writing system is always looking for a reform but until now either English or Chinese didn’t change.
“Cheng-Zhong Su, you're not building a strong case for overhauling the English language. If you have trouble with the plural forms of English words, I'm sorry, but native speakers do not.”
I think you mean the adult native speaker. For the children, they could even know what is a sin75 or log87, how can they know the number? Another question is what is your opinion of without the plural ‘s’? Does it cause mistake?
Matthew said: “If you think English would be a better language if we reduced the number of words and made up the rest by combining two or more words into one, you couldn't be more mistaken. If it works in Chinese, and I'm not familiar enough with the language to know for sure, that's great, but I don't think there is a native English speaker anywhere who would wish for the same to be true for English.”
Above, some one has said that in the world any language is changing. That is true. Of course the native speaker doesn’t familiar with the compound words’ system but you could not say that after fifty year’s time, the English is still insisting the unit or synthetic words’ system.
Matthew said: “The only thing about English which needs reform is our spelling system, not because it's too hard to learn, but because far too many people don't feel it necessary to do so fully. I would support the government in bringing about such change, even though I find English spelling to be beautiful, as it would be best for the population as a whole.”
That is true. I remember that Bernard Shaw had set a prize when he was dying that would award to some one who invent the right correct letters for pronouncing system for English. It had been invented and people found that it reduced the pages of a book. I know the Chinese writing system is always looking for a reform but until now either English or Chinese didn’t change.