Re: Plausibility Check


Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:

Yet you parrot Nazi ideology -- "the lower classes have impoverished
vocabulary."

No, I do not speak of an impoverished vocabulary, I speak
of small vocabularies. There _are_ people with a small
vocabulary. However, the number of words are not all that
counts, language got further elements that are equally
important, musicality, rhythm, mimics, gestures, body
language - elements you are dismissing from your narrow
understanding of language.

No, there are not people with a "very small" (define "very small")
vocabulary (unless, of course, they are brain-damaged).

4,000 words are a small vocabulary, but many people
manage well with that small number of words. We also
learned that with 200 English words one can travel across

Oh, you "learned" that, did you? Where did you "learn" that? For so few
words, surely you have a complete list that you can share with us?

the USA, from New York to San Francisco. Does this make

Why not across England, all the way from London to Manchester or Leeds?

English a poor language? No. English is easily accessible
on a basic level, and highly demanding on the top level.

I know the number of words claimed by contemporary lexicographers, and
I know how much the vocabulary has grown over the last few centuries,
and I know that scientific writing essentially didn't exist in English
before the late 17th century, and expansion of the vocabulary by
assimilation of exotic loanwords didn't particularly set in until the
18th century (with widespread British imperialism).

When I quoted from that radio program saying English in the
time of Shakespeare had 200,000 words you replied that I am
lying about a fact. So tell me the fact. Tell me how many words
English counted in the time of Shakespeare.

I am not an Anglist, and I have told you many times how to find that
number, and I have provided you with one estimate of Shakespeare's
vocabulary.

Doubtless the electronic OED enables you to count the number of words
with citations between 1590 and 1620. I don't have access. Maybe
someone else does.

I don't consult online dictionaries, I look up the real stuff on
paper, the 23 volumes of the Middle English dictionary, the
many volumes of the Oxford English dictionary, Pokorny in
print, and of course the dozen or so volumes of the Idiotikon,
the dictionary of my native language.

The electronic OED (I didn't say online; the CD-ROM does just as well)
isn't the OED? Some parts of it have been revised to an extent beyond
any print edition.

You're fond of going to libraries ... I had better things to do at the
NYPL yesterday, things relating to my own work, on the one hand, and
research, on the other.

Why do you think am I frequenting the university library?
For the same reasons.

Then look up the answers to the things you are wondering about.

Why? He was 200 years earlier and did not publish on scientific topics.
Nor did he write novels and essays on everything under the sun. Maybe
Isaac Asimov used a vocabulary as large as Goethe's, because he, too,
published on everything under the sun (except linguistics -- once I
asked him howcome, and he answered that he needs to know something
about a subject before he writes about it: an attitude I wish more
people would share. He did publish many books on etymology, a topic, I
keep reminding everyone, is rather distant from linguistics.)

Yes, that's a good explanation why Goethe's vocabulary was
larger than the one by Shakespeare.

Why do you feel that sharing your meta-methodology would be of
interest?

If someone should be interested in these questions - how many
words did Chaucer, Shakespeare, Homer use? how many authors
were involved in the case of Homer and perhaps of Shakespeare?
what do we know about the taxonomy of the various versions of
the Canterbury Tales? etc. - they got a name, Ricardo Mansilla,
and there is the author I could find out about. If I get a problem
I consult people who are working in the field, it's very easy with
the great facility of the Internet, and they are usually very nice.
I encourage young readers to do the same.

Yet you don't ask me about things in my areas of specialization, you
ask me about nonsence or irrelevancies.

Yes, you did speak of the Middle Ages. Several times.

Where? I spoke and speak of the era of Middle English
(1066 - 1475).

In the message to which I replied stating that mentioning the Middle
Ages was irrelevant, idiot.

If that is an accurate representation of what the radio program said
(many years ago, you admit), then now you know it is not a reliable
source of information. It would be preferable to think you misremember
it than that it purveys misinformation to the entire population of
Switzerland.

Stop it now !!! Tell us how many words English had in the
time of Shakespeare, or get away from me.

*** off, ***.

Invective enough for you?

Yet you don't recall that just yesterday you wrote of the Middle Ages.
Several times.

Tell me one message in this thread where I spoke of the
Middle Ages, apart from correcting you as now. I spoke
of the era of Middle English, era of Middle English, era
of Middle English, era of Middle English, era of Middle
English, era of Middle English, era of Middle English

And you called it the Middle Ages. Idiot.

(our teacher in the primary school complained that he
has to tell us everything seven times until we finally get
it, and then, one morning, he came to school beaming:
he just read an article about neurology, and it said the
brain needs to be told seven times ... He came to the
same conclusion from his experience as a teacher).

Perhaps an allusion to Miller's "5 plus or minus 2."

Perhaps you are at the age of retirement, like Lance Armstrong or that
French head-butting guy.

That French head-butting guy, Zinedine Zidane, was badly
provoked by Materazzi, three times. There is now a song
about Zizou's head-butting, big summer hit in France.
And, no, I am not in the age of retirement. Nor am I in my
eighties, as you believed earlier on.

So you claim. But you write as if you were.

So you hadn't when I wrote this, had you.

That's correct. On the other hand, why should I do all the
work for you when you call me a liar because I quoted from
a radio program? You said I am lying about a fact, but you
can't tell me the fact, namely the number of English words
Shakespeare's time. And of course no apologies for all the
false accusations in this thread.

"Quote" means reproducing the exact words used. Since what you wrote
was incorrect, either they broadcast something correct and you
misremember it in your paraphrase, or they broadcast something
incorrect and you shouldn't be relying on it. How many times do I have
to repeat this? 7?

Your own estimate of the Middle English vocabulary, by counting entries
in the MED, was half the number you misremember from the radio program.
Or do you forget reporting your calculation?

.