Re: Typical lexicon size in natlangs
> > Interesting things to look might be, how does the lexiconAnd the other will have a whole lot of words in common use that the
> > 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.
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.
All original matter is hereby placed immediately under the public domain.
- 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).