Language desk
< September 12	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 13

spanish and english

How many words in the \Spanish Language. How many words in the English language? Media:language]] thank you lavac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavac (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many words there are in a language is really not very well defined. You can count the number of entries listed in unabridged dictionaries, but many would consider it to be a semi-pointless exercise... AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This website affiliated with the Oxford dictionary says the dictionary includes "171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words. To this may be added around 9,500 derivative words included as subentries." So you could say about 225,000 English words by these stats. This other website and this one claim a 2:1 English:Spanish vocabulary ratio, (therefore @ 112,500 Spanish words) though the reliability of these two latter sites is questionable. Either way, AnonMoos is right about the frivolity of these estimates, and the infeasibility of calculating good estimates. That first website of the OED addresses this issue, if you'd like to give it a read.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the issue of how, in linguistics, the concept word is defined, there are other issues.
The number of entries in a dictionary need bear no relation to the number of words in the language. At best, it indicates at least how many words the language contains.
But how do we define "the language"? Is it the grand total of all idiolects? Of all sociolects, registers, jargons? Do words that have only occurred once or twice count? Should they have been recorded in writing?
Nobody knows the language: we only command segments of it. Hence bitter feuds about what constitutes correct usage and what doesn't.
Which is not to say that in certain well-defined cases, language X may be said to seem to contain more words than language Y. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores del Rio

In cleaning up her article, I ran into something my rudimentary Spanish couldn't handle. Could somebody kindly figure out if the group she founded, Rosa Mexicano, is related to or the same as Estancia Infantil (and what it does)? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a little Googling, it appears that she created estancia infantil and "formed part" of Rosa Mexicano. This article implies that estancia infantil is a school for children to teach them about acting. Rosa Mexicano might help manage estancia infantil, and both have gain the approval and praise of La Asociación Nacional de Actores (ANDA). Hope that helps.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency of languages

This is something I've been wondering about for 20-30 years. Which is the most "efficient" language in terms of the expressing a given quantity of information using the least words/letters/penstrokes?

I've often noticed that English seems to be more efficient than other languages based on the Latin alphabet. Is that the case? For example, in multilingual instructions for electrical appliances, the English instructions are almost always shorter than the instructions in French, German, Polish etc. Is English somehow more efficient? And if so, why? (If not, I wonder if things are clumsily translated into other languages, whereas people that translate into English are more capable of expressing things efficiently, if you see what I mean.)

Are the CJK languages the world's most efficient?--92.41.242.174 (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly noticed that in a bilingual English-French text, the French version generally seems to take up more room than the English version (assuming they're both set in the same font, with the same size and spacing). However, I always assumed that this was partially due to French having a lot more silent letters ("ils mangeaient" contains five sounds, but 13 letters!). If you set alphabet letters and logographic characters on an equal footing, then Chinese texts will probably contain fewer logographic characters than corresponding English texts would contain alphabetic letters, but I don't know what that would prove... AnonMoos (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of writing, Chinese would probably be the most "efficient" in terms of graphemes. For speech, though, it's very difficult to find a good answer because all language have efficiency issues. In other words, in language A, it may be easier to express a point about X than language B, but language B can more easily express Y than language A. Then you get into the question of what efficiency means in terms of language. Is "I do not know" less efficient than "I don't kmow" because it contains more words? Or is it the same because don't is merely a contraction of do not and when you read it, you think do not in your head anyway? As for the OP's comment about instruction translations, I myself have encountered several mistranslations from English and overly-wordy translations.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a language like Chinese be even more efficient because of the reduced number of characters/strokes? Also keep in mind that there may be a bit of variation depending on topic. There are also a number of terms in one particular language that may not translate well in another; the translator's choice of which word is the least different may be longer or shorter but this would hide the real (i.e. cumbersomely inefficient) way to express the idea would be to define it on the page. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When comparing parallel texts like instructions, it's also worth noting that translations tend to be longer than originals, because the original writer (who actually knows the subject matter well) is more likely to have the scope to choose a short wording. (Of course this does not apply to artistic translations or to the sort of thing that you see on Jay Leno's "Headlines" from time to time: "This is the PVC Mobile Phone Case of easy schleping and more function, this case is made with import and defended radialization material. And the appearance is so beautiful. The main characteristic is easy schleping, it can be hunged up at the waist, hunged up at the cervix and free holding.") --Anonymous, 20:52 UTC, September 13, 2008.

Another anecdotal answer, relating to spoken language: For a number of years in my church, on Pentecost Sunday, it was our tradition to read the Gospel text in as many different languages -- simultaneously! -- as we could drum up speakers for (10-12 was a typical number).

The German reader ALWAYS finished last, by several verses.

HTH! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read once that Don Rosa, who draws Disney cartoons, has to dimension the speech bubbles so that the language with the longest translations fit. This language is always Finnish. No citation here though. Jørgen (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some related pages which I found by excursing on the Internet, with Google as my tour guide.

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From this index page, one can choose a page with parallel texts in different languages, and make firsthand observations.

Tips for Translators: Multilingual Websites with Parallel Texts

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the interesting responses (and thanks Wavelength for the links - I had tried Googling but didn't get far). Cheers, --217.171.129.68 (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC) (formerly 92.41.242.174)[reply]

Additional external links to multilingual websites can be found at Free dual language Spanish-English books.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the language of mathematics, one symbol can represent one word.

In mathematical tables, one cell can represent one statement.

The same is true of other tables of information.

Saving space => saving paper => saving trees => saving the natural environment.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have tried to devise constructed languages to express things in the most succinct and logical manner possible. They're often called loglangs. A good example is Lojban. Steewi (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean loglangs. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At one time, the letters between Victor Hugo and the British publisher Hurst and Blackett held a world record for the shortest correspondence. Hugo was on vacation and was wondering how his book was selling in Britain; in his letter to the publisher he wrote "?" and received "!" as a response. [sic] (Please see Les_Misérables#Other, point 5.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek is also very efficient from a viewpoint of word count because you can compact lots of meaning within just one or two words (albeit they tend to get long at some point!). NerdyNSK (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

prefix Mrs

Can you please tell me when the prefix Mrs, as a womans title, was first used in England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croyccooper (talk • contribs) 07:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It came from an abbreviation of the word "Mistress", orginally the feminine of the word "Master"; both of these words were at one time somewhat upper-class titles (alternative terms, such as "Goodman" and "Goodwife", were used with names of those in lower social strata). The written form "M^rs" (with superscript letters usual to abbreviations of the time) was used as a general abbreviation of the word "Mistress" in the 17th century, but it wasn't separated out as a distinct word (separate from "Mistress", and used only as a title before the names of married women) until around the late 18th century or so (and "Mrs." was still sometimes placed before the name of older women who had never been married, as a sign of respect, well into the 19th century). AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology in old records

In old parish church records dated 1729, it refers to the bride a MS Ann Egerton. Would the prefix MS at that particular time in 1729 indicate MS to mean Mistress, as in an unmarried woman, or could it have indicated that she was possibly a widow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croyccooper (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At that time, I imagine, any word beginning 'M' and ending 's' might be abbreviated M^s, though capitalizing the S is curious. —Tamfang (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the pronunciation of "en-" prefix be "en" or "in"? And what is the correct pronunciation of words like "economics" and "essential"?

When you go to the dictionary and check the phonetics, you will find most of the English words that have prefix "en-" should have the prefix pronounced as "in", examples including "enjoy", "encourage", "enroll", "engage"...

However, in real life, you can hear most people pronouncing the prefix as "en". Which one should be the correct one?

And for words with prefix "e-", just like "economics", people also pronounce it like "ek-kon-no-mic". But according to the phonetics in most dictionaries, it should be "ee-kon-no-mic". Similarly, it should be "ee-sent-tial" instead of "ek-sent-tial". Once again, which one should be the correct one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.247.100 (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my dictionary (the OED), gives the pronunciation [ɛn] (which I think is what you mean by en) for all the en- words you list. It also lists both the pronunciations you give of economics (and those are just the British options!) and does not list ee-sent-tial as an option. All that complies with my experience of how people pronounce things here in southern England. So what dictionary are you using? It sounds like it's listing pronunciations that are either inappropriate to your regional accent or are just plain wrong. Algebraist 08:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I wouldn't place much money on "the correct one." In some places, a timetable is a SHEDule, in others a SKEDule. It's a language, not metallurgy. Merriam Webster lists both ee- and ek- for economics. Those with too much time on their hands, here in the U.S., are fond of arguing that the first pronunciation is the preferred one. Often they can also explain to you in excruciating detail why X (any technology that failed to gain mass acceptance, like beta videotapes) is really much much better than Y (the one that did get accepted, like VHS). --- OtherDave (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am the one who asked this question and thank you all for the answers. Well, the one that I was referring was indeed the Cambridge dictionary. And it in fact has the "[ɛn]" phonetic shown as an alternative to the pronunciatin of those words starting with "en-". Reference here: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.143.15 (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

date certain versus certain date

Why "he is opposed to setting a date certain for withdrawal"[1]? Why not "a certain date?"

Is there a general grammatical rule?--71.108.5.71 (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not a question of grammar, it's a legal term. In this context, it means that he doesn't want to set a date for troop withdrawal that cannot be changed. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--71.108.5.71 (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you got in first, Captain, because I'd never heard that term before. Inter alia, I was going to say that the original sentence could perhaps be improved by removing "certain". Setting a date means the date is set, so the certainty is already implied. However, this is politics, and announcements of intended actions don't always result in those actions happening on the day they were promised, or sometimes not at all. So maybe he was hedging his bets by trying to introduce a nuance to distinguish between commitments of one kind (the ones that will be honoured, and honoured on time, no matter what) and those of another (the ones that are more ... flexible in both respects). -- JackofOz (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectival phrases may occur as pre- or postmodifiers to a noun.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Adjectival phrase.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this is certainly true, they may not be interchanged indiscriminately.
A bin full of toys obviously cannot be substituted by *A full of toys bin. Nor would it be acceptable to replace a toy-filled bin by a bin toy-filled in all circumstances, although more or less far-fetched examples could be constructed: a bin toy-filled is a bin well used perhaps? Rather Christmassy though. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar question

High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates do, this being why so many high school students go on to pursue college degrees.

The italicized portion should read:

(a) do; this fact explains why so many high school students
(b) do, explaining why so many high school students

(a) is the answer, but why? --99.237.96.81 (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the participle phrase in B ("explaining why so many high school students...") doesn't modify any specific noun or pronoun. Zagalejo^^^ 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All three versions are correct. "Explaining why..." and "this being why..." are participial expressions that serve as adverbs modifying the main clause. Some people consider these bad style, but they're not incorrect. --Anonymous, 21:00 UTC, September 21, 2008.

I would regard version b as less than acceptable, for the simple reason that explaining has no subject. The sentence, then, would effectively become
High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates do, explaining why so many high school students go on to pursue college degrees.
The sentence is then regarded as elliptical, and the subject gap before explaining is filled, mentally, by substituting either of two subjects from the main clause:
(c) High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates do, high school graduates explaining why so many high school students go on to pursue college degrees.
(d) High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates do, college graduates explaining why so many high school students go on to pursue college degrees. Both make for nonsense, of course.

(b) would be correct if explaining were given its own subject: . . . this fact explaining why . . . [By contrast, (a) has a subject, and so does this being why). Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you let us native English-speakers decide what is acceptalbe English? What is "explaining" is not the subjects you are trying to mentally substitute, but the entire preceding clause. --Anonymous, 03:42 UTC, September 17, 2008.

The best formulation of this sentence would be, 'High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates do, which is why so many high school students go on to pursue college degrees. Notice the 'which'. On the other hand: 'High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates do; this being why so many high school students go on to pursue college degrees, is also correct. The semi-colon separates two clauses where the sentence following the semi-colon adds further detail to the sentence before the semi-colon. Generally, a semi-colon separates two thoughts which are related but 'are not worthy enough to form a sentence'. A simple example is: I like English; it is an excellent language. The statement preceding the semi-colon and the statement following the semi-colon are related but replacing the ; by a , would not be appropriate. Notice, how the statement after the ; discribes the statement before the semi-colon in further detail.

Topology Expert (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Periods (full stops) at the end of abbreviations

I know that in the UK, abbreviations such as Mr or Mrs, where the first and last letters of the full word are also included in the abbreviation, do not take a period (full stop) at the end, whereas in the US, the period is always used: Mr. and Mrs. Can anybody tell me when this difference began to appear? Was there a common period where both sides of the Pond used the same method? Corvus cornix_talk 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's a matter of UK vs. US, but a question of style. There are many different style guides, and these days a particular style guide can be followed in many parts of the world. One company will use it, and the one next door will use a different one. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is indeed a national variation. Most people in North America learn that the period is required, and if there are style guides that say otherwise, they're not ones that are widely followed. (Some special contexts, like highway signs, follow different rules.) Just based on things I've read that were printed at different times, there seems to have been a movement in the UK to reduce the amount of punctuation that took hold sometime around 1970, but you should consider that date very approximate. Until then British material tended to be more heavily punctuated than North American. --Anonymous, 03:49 UTC, September 14, 2008.

I concur with Anonymous. In the UK, the full stop after Mr, Mrs, Dr, St, etc., is now old-fashioned, perhaps very old-fashioned. "Was there a common period where both sides of the Pond used the same method?" - Yes, in the 19th century and well into the 20th century, but it's hard to pin down a date by which the UK had all but abandoned this full stop. You could perhaps look at when leading newspapers did so. I think Fowler's Modern English Usage (which explains why we should use the full stop only when letters after it are omitted) may have been a factor in the change. Strawless (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler may have been a factor, but the fact is that British usage today often does not follow him, instead omitting all periods after abbreviations. --Anon, 00:37 UTC, September 15, 2008.

If we had articles on open punctuation and closed punctuation, we might be better able to answer. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to say that maybe it became fossilised at the same time that "Sir Fred Smythe, V.C., G.C.M.G., K.C.V.O., O.M., C.H." became "Sir Fred Smythe VC GCMG KCVO OM CH". Which looks cleaner? I'll let the reader decide. (Oh, please don't pick on me if the order of the postnominals is not right; it's just a hypothetical example.) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are all getting lazier - just look at the language of texting - and in the UK and the Republic of Ireland we seized the chance to abandon many full stops, liked the look of that, and then started abandoning the rest. I am still at the middle stage of the process, writing "Dr Jekyll" and "etc.", but then I am not so young as I was. Strawless (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't laziness! It came in - yes, in the 1970s - with the "block style" of letter layout. Typists were trained not to indent paragraphs, not to put a comma after "Dear Sir" or within addresses, and not to put stops in abbreviations. Efficiency was the aim, and increased output from the typing pool. Blame Fredrick Winslow Taylor. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he deserves a pat on the back. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Partridge in Usage and Abusage, 1964 reprint, "last revised 1957", prescribed Mr and Mrs, since in British English they were regarded as "contractions", whereas in American usage Mr. and Mrs. were considered "abbreviations". This would suggest that it is not a matter of efficiency but of viewpoint. Bessel Dekker (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being, as I understand it, that a contraction contains the first and last letters of the word, but one or more of the others is missing; whereas an abbreviation has at least the first letter and it can also contain one or more but not all of the others, not necessarily including the last letter. If that's the distinction, then it seems that all contractions are abbreviations, but not all abbreviations are contractions. Mr and Mrs seem to be both. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about "St(.)" for "Street"? Is it a contraction of "street" or an abbreviation of "street"? —An gr 08:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky boy. If it's perceived as a dropping of the "reet", then it's an abbreviation but not a contraction. If it's perceived as a dropping of the "tree", then it's both. But who can say which perception is the right one, or if there even is a "right one"? I'd conclude that it's valid to consider it an abbreviation and it's also valid to consider it a contraction. Id est, it's both; so the dropping-of-the-tree perception prevails by default. All this hinges on my theory as described above, which is still subject to confirmation or demolition. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, my gut tells me that when I write "St." (and as an American I'd put a period at the end either way), I'm dropping "reet", not "tree". Also, thinking of it that way allows followers of the British rule to distinguish between "St" as a contraction of "Saint" and "St." as an abbreviation of "Street". But what is the actual practice? Do followers of the British rule write "St" or "St." when abbreviating "Street"? —An gr 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This gets back to style. I'm sure you'd see plenty of British examples of both. (And I think we've just come up with a cool new way to separate linguists into camps: reet-droppers vs. tree-droppers. This is something the world has long needed. Reet and tree are anagrams, too, which provides fertile ground for further exploration.) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street is a classic example where the dotless form is a no-no (Partridge again), the rationale being that first -t-. British English, according to Partridge, has St. for Street, and either St. or St for Saint.

SOED concurs with JackofOz, citing Exancester > Exeter as an instance of abbreviation. (This, surely, must come as a relief?) However, for present purposes there seems to be an operational difference. After all, the choice between dotting and undotting is a matter of convention. Bessel Dekker (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting, thanks to the participants. Corvus cornix_talk 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]