|
|
English has less words than french for a same description?
>>The total and official number of words in the french language is around 700,000 and with technical words :1,000,000 (Equally with English):
http://www.weblettres.net/spip/article.php3?id_article=552 <<
So says "Serge Toutlouyan", whoever the hell he is. He must be the one saying your "bullshits"(ha, ha).
>>Le relevé le plus exhaustif tournerait autour de 600 000 ou 700 000 mots, mais on a pu proposer aussi le chiffre de 1 million de mots techniques. <<
4 million in English.
>>Stop SAYING BULLLLSHIIIIITTTTSSSS and saying that english has a "greater vocabulary" is false! <<
English is in the fore as the language used in most fields of study, in more cultures, involved in more creoles than French, etc. so any person with reason can see it would have to have more vocabulary than French.
<<
>>Le relevé le plus exhaustif tournerait autour de 600 000 ou 700 000 mots, mais on a pu proposer aussi le chiffre de 1 million de mots techniques. <<
4 million in English
>>
Any Proofs?
Que c'est bizarre, le nombre de mots en anglais tombe subitement de 950,000 mots à 4,000,000 de mots, depuis que j'ai prouvé que le français avait autant de mots que l'anglais pouvait avoir...
Mais dit moi, combien de mots utilises-tu?
La question était: English has less words than french for a same description?
L'anglais aura beau avoir plus de mots techniques...
C'est le français qui utilise plus de mots pour la description, la preuve?
Le français est la seule langue juridique de ce nom dans les instances européennes, pourquoi? Pour sa précision, pour sa qualité de description...
-------------------------
English will may have more technical terms...
It's French which uses more words for the description, the proof?
French is the only legal language in the European juridiction, why? For its precision, for its description qualities.
..
http://www.jeunes-europeens-pro.org/?p=105
""Le Comité pour la langue du droit européen (CPLDE) estime que le français est la langue la plus précise, la plus fiable et la plus rigoureuse des 23 langues officielles de l’Union européenne... ""
Against that what can you say?
That English is the most learnt language in EU?
I make fun of it!
The question of this topic was "English has less words than french for a same description?", I answered YES IT IS, it 's French. Point.
<<English is in the fore as the language used in more cultures, involved in more creoles than French>>
look this map:
http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amsudant/images/creole-mapa.gif
11 million French creole speakers (without Pitinègue créoles (African french different creoles))
5 million English creole speakers
0,4 million Portuguese creole speakers
0,3 million Spanish creole speakers
0,1 million Dutch creole speakers
>>Any Proofs?
Que c'est bizarre, le nombre de mots en anglais tombe subitement de 950,000 mots à 4,000,000 de mots, depuis que j'ai prouvé que le français avait autant de mots que l'anglais pouvait avoir... <<
I just pulled 4 million out of the air like Serge did with his 1 million.
Language experts estimate 2 million for English but I don't care for statistics on words because anyone can exploit them to back up their argument.
>>English will have more technical terms... <<
It's good to see someone come around, using a bit of common sense.
>>The question of this topic was "English has less words than french for a same description?", <<
Too ***subjective***.
>>""Le Comité pour la langue du droit européen (CPLDE) estime que le français est la langue la plus précise, la plus fiable et la plus rigoureuse des 23 langues officielles de l’Union européenne... ""<<
It is any wonder? Because its heads are francophones.
>>look this map:
http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amsudant/images/creole-mapa.gif <<
There are more native and nonnative speakers of English
<<>>Any Proofs?
Que c'est bizarre, le nombre de mots en anglais tombe subitement de 950,000 mots à 4,000,000 de mots, depuis que j'ai prouvé que le français avait autant de mots que l'anglais pouvait avoir... <<
I just pulled 4 million out of the air like Serge did with his 1 million.
Language experts estimate 2 million for English but I don't care for statistics on words because anyone can exploit them to back up their argument.
>>English will have more technical terms... <<
It's good to see someone come around, using a bit of common sense.
>>The question of this topic was "English has less words than french for a same description?", <<
Too ***subjective***.
>>""Le Comité pour la langue du droit européen (CPLDE) estime que le français est la langue la plus précise, la plus fiable et la plus rigoureuse des 23 langues officielles de l’Union européenne... ""<<
It is any wonder? Because its heads are francophones.
>>look this map:
http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amsudant/images/creole-mapa.gif <<
There are more native and nonnative speakers of English>>
Ah... dur! dur! d'admettre la vérité...hein?
Tes réponses sont déviantes, la preuve que ce que je dis est correct.
>>Ah... dur! dur! d'admettre la vérité...hein?
Tes réponses sont déviantes, la preuve que ce que je dis est correct. <<
What exactly is correct, your version of the truth?
Since you love them, here are statistics:
http://www.coli.uni-saarland.de/~hansu/courses/FLST06/FoundationsLST_06_1.pdf
Page 17:
"Total Size of English Vocabulary
1 million words without special scientific and technical terms
2 million words including all scientific and technical terms"
>>The question of this topic was "English has less words than french for a same description?<<
How can you possibly expect an objective answer for this title?
« Guest » : « And like I said before, English has its own Germanic "inheritence" to counteract that of French's. »
Cela ne saurait suffire puisque le vieil-anglais a subi un véritable Tchernobyl lexical face à l'afflux de mots français. Environ 80 % du fonds primitif a disparu. Par conséquent l'héritage de l'ancien germanique occidental passé à l'anglais n'est rien comparé à ce que le français a hérité du latin en ligne directe.
« Guest » : « You will always be able make up greater numbers for the English language and it's not just dictionaries that will confirm this, as obviously on a world scale, it is used in more endeavours and cultures than the French language. »
Si tu es si sûr de ce que tu affirmes, j'imagine que tu n'auras aucune peine à le démontrer.
« Guest » : « Well, why don't you prove it otherwise? Why don't you show that not all general language dictionaries aren't "made the same" as you have asserted. »
Je comprends que tu esquives car il est impossible de "démontrer" ce que tu affirmais.
« Guest » : « At least I have substantiated my argument by the fact that English has more speakers and is used in more geographical areas and undertakings globally than French. So following in this idea, one can deduce that more speakers of a language equates to a greater vocabulary, compared to that of another with fewer speakers. »
Libre à toi d'appeler ça une "démonstration". Je ne parierais pas ma chemise sur un tel "argument". Quand on considère que l'anglophonie est majoritairement états-unienne — et toutes choses restant égales par ailleurs —, cela voudrait dire que le vocabulaire anglais serait essentiellement états-unien. Un peu court quand même...
>>Cela ne saurait suffire puisque le vieil-anglais a subi un véritable Tchernobyl lexical face à l'afflux de mots français. Environ 80 % du fonds primitif a disparu. Par conséquent l'héritage de l'ancien germanique occidental passé à l'anglais n'est rien comparé à ce que le français a hérité du latin en ligne directe.<<
I agree of course. But you missed the part that this was to relate to the manner in which you are considering sources. It doesn't matter that something is a borrowing or is inherited.
>>Si tu es si sûr de ce que tu affirmes, j'imagine que tu n'auras aucune peine à le démontrer. <<
As I did. But it isn't obvious to you that there are more native speakers of English than French and that English is more widely used today especially in modern endeavours like sciences among other things, where languistic application is more significant than ever.
>>Je comprends que tu esquives car il est impossible de "démontrer" ce que tu affirmais.<<
What do I have to avoid? If you can't make the leap with a bit of logic, I can't help you. I even put figures up but if you're not satisfied, you can pursue the appropriate experts yourself.
>>Libre à toi d'appeler ça une "démonstration". Je ne parierais pas ma chemise sur un tel "argument". Quand on considère que l'anglophonie est majoritairement états-unienne — et toutes choses restant égales par ailleurs —, cela voudrait dire que le vocabulaire anglais serait essentiellement états-unien. Un peu court quand même... <<
Population-wise, the US is 5 times the size of France so using the phrase "all things being equal" sounds really funny, not to mention the ramifications of American English on outside dialects. So American English has added to the English lexicon, how is that supposed to be isolated as a sole variable in your "argument"?
No matter how much and how strong the evidence is, you will always cry for 100% cut-and-dry proof.
<<No matter how much and how strong the evidence is, you will always cry for 100% cut-and-dry proof. >>
agreed. it's a cop-out
« Guest » : tu n'as manifestement pas compris ce dont je parlais. Je réfutais ton "argument" quantitativiste quant aux bases locutives d'une langue X et d'une langue Y en l'appliquant, pour en démontrer l'absurdité, aux bases locutives A & B d'une même langue X. Mais comme je le disais, tu n'as pas saisi l'objection puisque tu t'obstines à comparer les États-Unis (de langue X) à la France (de langue Y) alors que qu'il s'agirait plutôt d'examiner ce que vaut ton "argument" quand on l'utilise pour l'anglophonie européenne (base locutive A de la langue X) et l'anglophonie nord-américaine (base locutive B de la langue X).
Pas grave...
And it's obvious you only partially understood so are stuck on only ONE part of what I was talking about. You're the one who keeps bringing up that one part about North America and comparing it to France but you don't even make a DIRECT point with your minimalist style of counterargument. Use an argument of your own instead of calling out "absurd" to anything you disagree with to decide a whole established position is false.
You're right that I don't understand how you think. You imply it's comparatively better, instead, to think in terms of groups of speakers of one language: using your "language Y", isolate Quebecois French from European French but there's inseparable crossover. It's not better. But with such a comparative, you don't outrightly show why such an approach is flawed.
Anyway, the more people there are to interact and to describe phenomena, the more vocabulary there is bound to be. The figures speak for themselves, so go confirm them with those who specialise in appraising them with or without machines. It would be more constructive to challenge them with the appropriate authorities than dodging them by looking for petty things in what I say and squabbling over them.
Since it doesn't matter, as you say, why come back and post here?
« Guest » : « The figures speak for themselves (...) ».
Après le sophisme, la tautologie. Avant de faire parler les "chiffres", faudrait d'abord les trouver...
« Guest » : « Anyway, the more people there are to interact and to describe phenomena, the more vocabulary there is bound to be. »
En conséquence de quoi le vocabulaire chinois est 4 fois plus important que le vocabulaire anglais ?
« Guest » : « Since it doesn't matter, as you say, why come back and post here? ».
Pour faire ressortir l'inanité de tes "démonstrations".
>>Pour faire ressortir l'inanité de tes "démonstrations". <<
Wow, strong motivation.
>>Après le sophisme, la tautologie.<<
You're getting good at it yourself.
>>En conséquence de quoi le vocabulaire chinois est 4 fois plus important que le vocabulaire anglais ? <<
You finally get the idea but as I mentioned this is only part of the bigger picture.
>>Avant de faire parler les "chiffres", faudrait d'abord les trouver... <<
Like I said, find an expert (that's not you) with credibility in the field to DISCREDIT what I say and that which is ESTABLISHED. You're doing a good job of talking "chiffres" with your ***. Anyway, I put up a link before when "A-S" put one up with the "1 million" figure for French.
Here is one from Lexxica Research who specialises in this sort of thing:
"There are likely over two million English words in all forms when scientific terms are included, and likely over four million if organism and specie designations where to be included (Crystal, 1990).
Webster's Third New International Dictionary contains about 267,000 entries. Paul Nation classified 113,161 of those entries as Base Words (Nation, 1990). [We are happy to disclose here that Paul Nation advises Lexxica and the development of V-CHECK and V-MAIL.]"
(page 2)
http://www.v-check.jp/research/pdf/20060601.pdf
Anti-Snob
I like your name :-) I'm absolutly anti-snobs as well.
<<Anti-Snob
I like your name :-) I'm absolutly anti-snobs as well. >>
Muchas Gracias, madame!
;)
|