4 ms·

Wouldn't analysis of top 3 contemporary newspapers / magazines in each language yield a more accurate result? Ie if Dickens or Melville used certain words in t

by omonra 12y ago

Wouldn't analysis of top 3 contemporary newspapers / magazines in each language yield a more accurate result? Ie if Dickens or Melville used certain words in their writing - if modern speakers don't know them, we can't really use them to gauge how many words English speakers use today. I, for one, simply can't read Shakespeare - most of his vocabulary (anybody knows what a 'bodkin' is?) sounds foreign to me. And I scored 99 percentile on the verbal SAT.

pcrh 12y ago
Most of Shakespeare's language is accessible to English speakers in England, Ireland, Australia, etc. There might be a few word here or there that are not widely understood ("bodkin" is not one of these, its meaning is generally known in the UK). However, American English, especially as is daily spoken in the more ethnically diverse areas of the US has a much reduced vocabulary due to the need to accommodate non-native speakers. For an example of where Shakespeare's language become confusing consider "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo." Modern speakers of English most often interpret "wherefore to mean "where", when it means "why".
- omonra 12y ago
  Seriously? What % of the English do you think will understand this (random start of first Shakespeare play that popped into my head): If music be the food of love, play on; Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting, The appetite may sicken, and so die. That strain again! it had a dying fall: O, it came o'er my ear like the sweet sound, That breathes upon a bank of violets, Stealing and giving odour! Enough; no more: 'Tis not so sweet now as it was before. O spirit of love! how quick and fresh art thou, That, notwithstanding thy capacity Receiveth as the sea, nought enters there, Of what validity and pitch soe'er, But falls into abatement and low price, Even in a minute: so full of shapes is fancy That it alone is high fantastical.
  - pcrh 12y ago
    Which words in that passage are not easily understandable? The most "obscure" one that I can identify is "notwithstanding" (Google gives 48,000,000 results for "notwithstanding", so it is not exactly an obscure word). A failure to understand that passage is a failure of comprehension, not of vocabulary.
    - omonra 12y ago
      You're talking about something else - individual words (at least in this passage) are certainly known to everybody. But what % of English speakers do you think can understand the passage?
      - pcrh 12y ago
        Understanding the English-speaking world's most famous poet and playwriter might be beyond the abilities of some people, that is for sure. It doesn't mean, though, that the language used is deliberately obscure. I would estimate that most high school graduates in the UK could correctly parse the passage posted, given enough time. Those with education specifically in English would parse it at first pass.
      - pcrh 12y ago
        To clarify: what is it that you do not understand about the posted passage?
        omonra 12y ago
        Honestly - I don't understand anything. Imagine you had an English text with half the words substituted with Dutch ones (that look similar but make no sense). So you might think you understand 2-3 words in a row only to come across the fourth word that seems key for the line but means nothing to you in the given context.
        pcrh 12y ago
        What makes it harder to understand is not the vocabulary, but the grammar, as well as Shakespeare's sometimes idiosyncratic use of word meaning. For example, "strain" here means a portion of music, which while not its most common meaning, is certainly within the abilities of most educated native speakers of English to understand, at least from context.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > There might be a few word here or there that are not widely understood ("bodkin" is not one of these, its meaning is generally known in the UK This is wrong, most people in the UK don't know what a bodkin is. Many people would think it an item of clothing or something to do with alcohol. About 16% of working age adults in the UK are functionally illiterate http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/adult_literacy/illiterate_adults_in_england http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/adult_literacy/illiterate_ad... (have less literacy than is expected of an 11 year old child). http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jan/24/books.politics http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jan/24/books.politics The average reading age in the UK is that of a 9 year old child. http://s-i-w.com/library/faqs/readability/what-average-reading-age-uk http://s-i-w.com/library/faqs/readability/what-average-readi... (although he doesn't give a source for this and it seems a bit low, even to me)

by omonra 12y ago

pcrh 12y ago

Most of Shakespeare's language is accessible to English speakers in England, Ireland, Australia, etc. There might be a few word here or there that are not widely understood ("bodkin" is not one of these, its meaning is generally known in the UK). However, American English, especially as is daily spoken in the more ethnically diverse areas of the US has a much reduced vocabulary due to the need to accommodate non-native speakers. For an example of where Shakespeare's language become confusing consider "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo." Modern speakers of English most often interpret "wherefore to mean "where", when it means "why".

omonra 12y ago
Seriously? What % of the English do you think will understand this (random start of first Shakespeare play that popped into my head): If music be the food of love, play on; Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting, The appetite may sicken, and so die. That strain again! it had a dying fall: O, it came o'er my ear like the sweet sound, That breathes upon a bank of violets, Stealing and giving odour! Enough; no more: 'Tis not so sweet now as it was before. O spirit of love! how quick and fresh art thou, That, notwithstanding thy capacity Receiveth as the sea, nought enters there, Of what validity and pitch soe'er, But falls into abatement and low price, Even in a minute: so full of shapes is fancy That it alone is high fantastical.
- pcrh 12y ago
  Which words in that passage are not easily understandable? The most "obscure" one that I can identify is "notwithstanding" (Google gives 48,000,000 results for "notwithstanding", so it is not exactly an obscure word). A failure to understand that passage is a failure of comprehension, not of vocabulary.
  - omonra 12y ago
    You're talking about something else - individual words (at least in this passage) are certainly known to everybody. But what % of English speakers do you think can understand the passage?
    - pcrh 12y ago
      Understanding the English-speaking world's most famous poet and playwriter might be beyond the abilities of some people, that is for sure. It doesn't mean, though, that the language used is deliberately obscure. I would estimate that most high school graduates in the UK could correctly parse the passage posted, given enough time. Those with education specifically in English would parse it at first pass.
    - pcrh 12y ago
      To clarify: what is it that you do not understand about the posted passage?
      - omonra 12y ago
        Honestly - I don't understand anything. Imagine you had an English text with half the words substituted with Dutch ones (that look similar but make no sense). So you might think you understand 2-3 words in a row only to come across the fourth word that seems key for the line but means nothing to you in the given context.
        pcrh 12y ago
        What makes it harder to understand is not the vocabulary, but the grammar, as well as Shakespeare's sometimes idiosyncratic use of word meaning. For example, "strain" here means a portion of music, which while not its most common meaning, is certainly within the abilities of most educated native speakers of English to understand, at least from context.
DanBC 12y ago
> There might be a few word here or there that are not widely understood ("bodkin" is not one of these, its meaning is generally known in the UK This is wrong, most people in the UK don't know what a bodkin is. Many people would think it an item of clothing or something to do with alcohol. About 16% of working age adults in the UK are functionally illiterate http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/adult_literacy/illiterate_adults_in_england http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/adult_literacy/illiterate_ad... (have less literacy than is expected of an 11 year old child). http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jan/24/books.politics http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jan/24/books.politics The average reading age in the UK is that of a 9 year old child. http://s-i-w.com/library/faqs/readability/what-average-reading-age-uk http://s-i-w.com/library/faqs/readability/what-average-readi... (although he doesn't give a source for this and it seems a bit low, even to me)