Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Typical lexicon size in natlangs

Expand Messages
  • Tristan
    ... And the other will have a whole lot of words in common use that the technologically advanced one will not. Which put me in mind of the metric of it s
    Message 1 of 59 , May 11, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      > > Interesting things to look might be, how does the lexicon
      > > size of a technologically-advanced society compare with,
      > > say, a third world society?

      > Obviously the technologically advanced one will have a whole
      > lot of vocabulary the other will not have.

      And the other will have a whole lot of words in common use that the
      technologically advanced one will not.

      Which put me in mind of the metric of it's speakers median speaking
      lexicon. Simpler to measure, and can be perhaps be approxomated without
      undue effort. If words are taken as unanayzable meanings, that is idioms
      included, I would hazard a guess that it would be fairly consistant
      across languages. The theory being that lexicon expands to fill the
      available memory, be it from naming our technological explosion or from
      naming the distinctions in the natural enviroment.

      Tristan

      --
      All original matter is hereby placed immediately under the public domain.
    • Juanma Barranquero
      ... Sure. But this thread discusses typical lexicon size , and Gary Shannon and H. S. Teoh proposed a bootstrap lexicon size as a meaningful measure. And
      Message 59 of 59 , May 20, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Anthony Miles <mamercus88@...> wrote:

        > Even in an impoverished environment humans or something like them will expand vocabulary.

        Sure. But this thread discusses "typical lexicon size", and Gary
        Shannon and H. S. Teoh proposed a "bootstrap lexicon size" as a
        meaningful measure. And I'm just pointing out that I don't think it
        would be a good metric, because if you use it for many languages, and
        the resulting size varies, let's say, between X-10% and X+10% for some
        X, that does not offer any insight about the *typical* lexicon size of
        the languages so tested. Systems of vastly different complexity can
        arise from similarly simple foundations (cellular automata are a clear
        example of that).

        J
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.