Words, words, words.

[The Unnamable]

I don’t want to get into an argument about whether English has more words than any other language as that brings out the idiot in everyone. However, I would be interested to know if you think English has any advantage over other languages in the production of ‘Literature’. I have seen various estimates for the size of Shakespeare’s vocabulary, ranging from about 18,000 to 25,000. I have also seen estimates claiming that the ‘average’ native English speaker’s vocabulary is around 8,000. Obviously it depends on many variables so I’m not interested in discussing the accuracy of the figures or how they are measured– you can make up your own minds about that. What I am interested in, however, is whether or not a huge vocabulary makes any significant difference to what ends up as Literature. Whatever the final count might be, someone writing in English certainly has an enormous number of words at his or her disposal. Does this matter?

[PeterL]

The quality of literature has more to do with how words are used than with the number of different words used. I have never seen estimates of how large the literary vocabularies of any authors were, but I have also read that typical users of English use around 10,000 words, and I have read that people can get by with about 2000 to 3000 words. I doubt that Dashiell Hammett used even that many in his writing. Mark Twain may have used 10,000 words. Nabokov probably used a much wider vocabulary. Vocabulary and word choice are two of the best ways to create characterization, so the number of words would relate to the types of characters that an author created.

[The Unnamable]

I would agree that it depends on how the words are used but I’m not sure that’s the whole story. I don’t think that it’s simply about how many different words are used but which words are used. A ‘typical’ user might use more different words than another user but still say far less.

As far as ‘getting by’ is concerned, you can manage with as few as a hundred or so. A few hundred will enable you to function perfectly adequately if by that you mean eating, finding a toilet and getting around etc. However, if you have more tools at your disposal, the number of things you can do with them surely increases?

What about Orwell’s Newspeak? With each successive edition of the dictionary, there is a decrease in the number of words. This increasingly limits the possibility of articulating a convincing counter argument. And what about Wittgenstein’s “The limits of my language are the limits of my world”? British poet Tony Harrison begins his poem V with the following quotation:

'My father still reads the dictionary every day.
He says your life depends on your power to master words.'

Arthur Scargill
Sunday Times, 10 January 1982

If you have 30 different words for ‘love’, doesn’t that offer the possibility of greater subtleties and nuances of meaning? In English we can say we love ice cream or we love our spouse. Don’t some languages distinguish between sexual love, brotherly love, love as religious devotion and so on?

Perhaps the effects are more noticeable in poetry. I don’t know about all this. I spoke to a friend who has lived in Thailand for a few years and he said that he probably has a few hundred words but that the kinds of conversations he can have are similar to those he has with his three-year-old son in English. However, that could be because he is still at the stage of translating what he wants to say rather than thinking in the second language.

[Virgil]

This is an interesting thread. I tend to think that more words offer more subtlies of distinction, or at least more possibilities of meaning. I say I tend to think that, but then I see hoe other European languages have less words than english but I don't think they are limited in expression. They probably are able to get across the same meaning by other means, ie, one word with multiple meanings or multiple words for what where we have one. Also, how much of the increase in vocabulary are due to increases in nouns? We have so many new things from centuries ago, such as an airplane.

[Grumbleguts]

Also, how much of the increase (singular) in vocabulary are due to increases in nouns?

Increases as in nouns getting longer do you mean?


We have so many new things from centuries ago, such as an airplane.

Only one airplane?

I think this proves that a surfeit of possible words can be confusing to some.

[beer good]

I'd say that the main advantage of English isn't the amount of words available (since the number of words actually used is much more important) but rather in the way the language is spread all over the world. Any language spoken as a mother tongue by hundreds of millions of people spread all over the globe, from Memphis to Mumbai, from Auckland to Anchorage, is bound to have more variation both in vocabulary and, perhaps more importantly, in themes and how words are used than a language spoken by a smaller number of people in one given area. But while the language as a whole does probably has a larger vocabulary than, say, Italian, does this mean that each English speaker/writer - whether born in Greenwich or Hong Kong - has a larger vocabulary than each Italian? Do most people who write in English actually use this supposedly huge vocabulary?

[stevenl]

This is also a disadvantage, too. Words take on different meanings in different contexts, and although english presumably, are meaningful only in specific contexts.

Take Japanese english, for instance, known affectionately as Konglish. They've coined an interesting word -- skinship. A combination of skin and kinship.

Here's the etymolgy:

Skinship is a Japanese/English word developed during a World Health Organization meeting in Japan in 1940. It describes the physical closeness between a mother and her child. When a child receives an abundance of skinship, the child is better able to handle stressful situations and will mature into an emotionally stable adult.

[beer good]

Yeah... wasn't it Shaw who described England and the US as "two nations divided by a common tongue"?

[Taliesin]

Interesting question.
But we feel that we are not competent to answer this question, as we have only one mother tongue and can't really judge another language on purely emotional reasons. There are too many nuances of it that a natural speaker can feel and that go over our head.
Can we really judge a poem written in a foreign language as well as we can judge one in our mother tongue? Poems lose a lot when translated and it is hard to translate oneself into a foreign language and culture room.
Someone who has two or more mother tongues would be in a better position answering this question.

[Virgil]

Increases as in nouns getting longer do you mean?



Only one airplane?

I think this proves that a surfeit of possible words can be confusing to some.
Thanks for correcting my grammer. As you can see, I don't proof read posts.

[mir]

English does have a lot of words, but i don't think we really use barely any of them. the truly great stories, i've been discovering, are those which use few long or complicated words, but keep their english simple and their ideas vivid and moving.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Most of the rich variety of English words is due to the English borrowing words from other languages. If we don't have a word for it, we just take one from some tongue that does. It's part of our great colonial tradition; we'll steal anything from anyone and 'civilise' them in return by showing them how to drink tea properly (No, no, no. Little finger just so...)

[simon]

I think the advantage that english has over other languages, is that it is easy to make new words or to adpot words from other languages because we have an alphabetic system of writing. Sounds can easily be translated into letters and words can be sounded out. The problem of course with so much influence is that you have words like "wrought" which is a totally ridiculous spelling. But a language like Korean Hanguel has this ability too, to be able to write the sounds they hear, but without such spelling problems as they developed their language specifically around a diverse Korean sound system. I think this allows for an infiltration of ideas from foreign sources and allows for more growth in the langauge, that's why Shakespeare could develope so many new words. There is innovation and creativity, other languages that are not alphabetic don't have this ability which makes english a good language to write in because of possibility. There are some authors that although english is not their native language prefer to write in it becuase of the many possible linguistic endeavors it presents to the author, Emmanuel Dongala is one. There is a short story called the Library of Bable that looks at the consequences of possibility though and it's detrimental effect that it is hard to understand.

[Geoffrey]

from a sociological perspective, the amount of words we have to express ourselves is very very important. Speaking means diplomacy, but when we run out of words to express how we feel, than fighting starts [fighting with fists, not words]
Having a wide vocabulary allows one to express how they feel in a much more accurate sense and thus allows for others to understand yourself better.

English though, is a poor language. Its simply not beautiful. Joyce wrote in his essay, The Study of Language, "the hardness which is sufficient for flat plain statements, by an overadded influence os what is beautiful is pathetic phrases, swelling of words, or torrents os invective, in troops and varieties of figures, yet preserving even in moments of the greatest emotion, an innate symmetry."

Also, "in the history of words there is much that indicates the history of men, and in comparing the speech of today with that of years ago, we have a useful illustration of the extent of the external influences on the very words of a race."

And lastly, "the higher grades of language, style, syntax, poetry, oratory, rhetoric, are again the champions and exponents, in what way soever, of truth."

All of those quotes, I think, are applicable.

[dreamsbegone]

i must say - and some may disagree with me- the amount of words you know has no such importance in writing. what has a great deal of importance is how to arrange those - may be few- words you have to make a beautiful sentence or to describe something in a sensual way. i write short stories in english though i am not from any country that speaks english, so knowing only a 100 word in english or a 1000 or a million doesn't really matter. and sometimes it might be useful using few vocabulary because the reader might be fresh to literature and might not know many words, we all know how hard it was for us when we read shakespeares plays for the first time.

[PeterL]

I would agree that it depends on how the words are used but I’m not sure that’s the whole story. I don’t think that it’s simply about how many different words are used but which words are used. A ‘typical’ user might use more different words than another user but still say far less.

Yes, it is usage, not quantity that makes words useful.



As far as ‘getting by’ is concerned, you can manage with as few as a hundred or so. A few hundred will enable you to function perfectly adequately if by that you mean eating, finding a toilet and getting around etc. However, if you have more tools at your disposal, the number of things you can do with them surely increases?

I meant by "get by" that one could carry on ordinary conversations. You are right that a few hundred words are necessary for basic communication, and I mean basic.



What about Orwell’s Newspeak? With each successive edition of the dictionary, there is a decrease in the number of words. This increasingly limits the possibility of articulating a convincing counter argument. And what about Wittgenstein’s “The limits of my language are the limits of my world”?


I haven't looked at the figures recently, but there are more words being put into use every year. If there aren't as many words in the dictionaries, that is because the publishers want to make a little more profit by cutting down on page count. http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/total_words.htm
[/QUOTE]

[Zarathustra]

i must say - and some may disagree with me- the amount of words you know has no such importance in writing. what has a great deal of importance is how to arrange those - may be few- words you have to make a beautiful sentence or to describe something in a sensual way. i write short stories in english though i am not from any country that speaks english, so knowing only a 100 word in english or a 1000 or a million doesn't really matter. and sometimes it might be useful using few vocabulary because the reader might be fresh to literature and might not know many words, we all know how hard it was for us when we read shakespeares plays for the first time.

I don't even think you need to be sensual necessarily. Some writers make a point of being as un-florid and blunt as possible. Raymond Carver is a both fantastic & renowned while he uses a writing style that could almost be described as autistic. Ie. intentionally making his sentences very short, repeating words without the use of pronouns ("Fred walked over to the rug and then picked the rug up" - not a quote, incidentally) & using very low-key simplistic language. Yet his short stories & poems are nevertheless extremely intelligent & if anything enhanced by their crudeness.

[blp]

People I know who know more than one language properly - of whom I'm inordinately jealous - say it's like knowing two different ways of thinking.

A long time ago, I read that French had far fewer words than English and that this made it a better language for poetry. Fewer words were having to do more work (i.e. cover more meanings) and this allowed for or created greater ambiguity. However, true or not, I'm not so jealous of this.

The abundance of words in English mostly doesn't help clarity in my (limited) view, just gives you a lot to choose from. To use an example I had to look up this week, why say 'sedulousness' when you could say 'dedication' and be understood by more people? I can't really think of a reason except that the former sounds better, so it's more fun. This would be a kind of aesthetic argument - more words for art's sake, which I suppose is a kind of positive answer to the original question of whether a large vocabulary contributes in some way to the creation of literature. Still...

...the Joyce quote about the unbeautifulness of our language seems fair when you compare it to Italian or French - to give what seem to me the most obvious examples. I'm not sure I mind this, however. The compartively flat sobriety of English rather suits me - though I suppose that could be because I've been conditioned by the language all my life.

I've also read that German is 'the language of philosophy' and, again, I have no way of judging that myself, but at least one German I've asked agreed and said it was because the precision of the language allowed for great clarity of expression.

Maybe English, as an outgrowth of both Romance and Germanic languages, gives us the best of both worlds - either that or an anodyne, watered down 'third way'.

[PeterL]

Maybe English, as an outgrowth of both Romance and Germanic languages, gives us the best of both worlds - either that or an anodyne, watered down 'third way'.

Probably true.

[jackyyyy]

I wonder if English has become ' a beautiful language ' without us feeling good about admiting it, and with a modesty, because older peer languages are naturally more heavily filled with romantic sounding words saying nearly the same thing, richer in opportunity of expression.

What is beauty anyway... Portuguese, an older Latin language, has a huge dictionary, so harder to master. French may have less words, but - after you have expressed your politeness in the first 100 words, you remain with little energy to say what you really wanted, or the reader is asleep at that point. German is precise, and maybe that was necessary in that culture - the Volts is a good car. Russia has so many great writers - and it needs them because of the huge book reading population.

I am so simplistic....

The strongest statements in history were made with a few deliberate words, including those of Winston, Lincoln, Patton, Jean Luke Picard, Mae West and Obi Wan Kenobi - and whether we agree/like or not, we sure remember. And Shakespeare was such a smart businessman to create "catch phrases" that the layman could remember, take home, feed to his family and friends on subsequent Saturday nights. The bible, in Latin, or any other language, was written for the masses - good marketing!

A wordsmith plays with words, a writer conveys a message, and English is the preferred tool because its an all-in-one language.

Which brings me to Coca Cola - only TWO words, and now I am thirsty.

[The Unnamable]

The abundance of words in English mostly doesn't help clarity in my (limited) view, just gives you a lot to choose from. To use an example I had to look up this week, why say 'sedulousness' when you could say 'dedication' and be understood by more people? I can't really think of a reason except that the former sounds better, so it's more fun.
It can help with clarity if precision is what you are after. ‘Sedulous’ and ‘dedicated’ don’t quite mean the same thing. So although more people might understand the latter, what they understand might not be precisely what the writer was aiming for. Obviously some writers will use words to obfuscate or appear clever but the very best writers will use the word most suited to their purpose, rather than one that everyone will understand. I could have said ‘obscure’ instead of ‘obfuscate’ and more people will have understood. But ‘obscure’ doesn’t have the same sense of deliberately making something opaque or confusing that ‘obfuscate’ has.

Does ‘the incessant din of the mundane’ mean exactly the same as any of the following:

The non-stop noise of the commonplace;
The never-ending racket of the everyday;
The endless clamour of the prosaic;
The perpetual cacophony of the humdrum;
The everlasting uproar of the routine;
The interminable hubbub of the habitual?


Mix and match for more options.

Which is easier to understand? Is that one the 'best'?

[blp]

Of course I agree with you up to a point. 'Obfuscate' seems to me to have much more of a sense of putting up a barrier to understanding. I'm not saying all similar words are identical, but as any two translators of the same work will tell you, and as your post indicates, even when the job is not translation but just writing, every major word choice involves rejecting a number of other options that may appear to be equally valid.

I wasn't arguing that language should always be chosen to be as intelligible as possible or saying that, if that wasn't, the intention was to obfuscate. What I was disputing was this idea that


e very best writers will use the word most suited to their purpose

and suggesting instead that some of them, some of the time, simply use the words they do because they like them. And I was in favour of that. I can agree with the 'most suited to their purpose' criteria - again, up to a point - but only to the extent that their purpose is art, so the sound of the word or even its appearance may be part of that purpose.

Still, that's terribly subjective. It's not like writing up a legal document or a web page for a bank. When absolute precision or immediate intelligibility are not absolutely compulsory, things come adrift from their moorings a little. Which one is the 'best', becomes hard to say, especially in a language with such a bewildering number of words.

[blp]

Which brings me to Coca Cola - only TWO words, and now I am thirsty.

You know, you really shouldn't drink that stuff, jackyyyy. It's evil in a can.

[PeterL]

What is beauty anyway... Portuguese, an older Latin language, has a huge dictionary, so harder to master. French may have less words, but - after you have expressed your politeness in the first 100 words, you remain with little energy to say what you really wanted, or the reader is asleep at that point. German is precise, and maybe that was necessary in that culture - the Volts is a good car. Russia has so many great writers - and it needs them because of the huge book reading population.


I like the way that you put that, but you could have put a different twiston it, if you had been so inclined.



A wordsmith plays with words, a writer conveys a message, and English is the preferred tool because its an all-in-one language.

Which brings me to Coca Cola - only TWO words, and now I am thirsty.

One word is worth a thousand pictures, if it is the right word.

[jackyyyy]

I like the way that you put that, but you could have put a different twiston it, if you had been so inclined.

One word is worth a thousand pictures, if it is the right word.

Ha, a different twicton being " Pepsi " (one word) ? I was being somewhat terse and defensive of the English language because of recent rumblings from certain friends of other shores about how lacking they see it. How is it lacking, when I can say in one word what they need 100 for ? English sure is ambiguous though, which makes for great debates and, "what did he really by...?"

[jackyyyy]

You know, you really shouldn't drink that stuff, jackyyyy. It's evil in a can.

I hate the stuff.. but its great to be ambiguous with.

[PeterL]

Ha, a different twicton being " Pepsi " (one word) ? I was being somewhat terse and defensive of the English language because of recent rumblings from certain friends of other shores about how lacking they see it. How is it lacking, when I can say in one word what they need 100 for ? English sure is ambiguous though, which makes for great debates and, "what did he really by...?"

I was thinking of more general cases, but using Coke gives even more meaning. I am not truly fluent in any language except English, but I know enough French to know that it is difficult to say many things in the language, and from discussions, I know quite a bit about Chinese and some other languages. Most languages are less flexible, so a user is required to use a series of words to say what English can express in a single word. Conversely, English has multiple words that have essentially the same meaning, so one can vary one's verbiage, and insert ambiguity. Chinese is an interesting language, because it is quite simple; there are not separate words for "he" and "she", so one must be careful with antecedents. On the other hand, the presuppositions that are not assumed in English are presupposed in Chinese; for example, "wa how" means "I am well," because in "wa" (I) existence is assumed. I have read that all languages are heading toward being like Chinese, but I doubt that. In most languages there are periodic reformations that require the restoration of bits that were ignored for a time. In English there have been periods when 'more' and 'most' were used in place of '-er' and '-est' and other periods when the suffixes were more popular, as one example.

[blp]

I hate the stuff.. but its great to be ambiguous with.

??...or just mystifying.

[jackyyyy]

Chinese; for example, "wa how" means "I am well," because in "wa" (I) existence is assumed. I have read that all languages are heading toward being like Chinese, but I doubt that. In most languages there are periodic reformations that require the restoration of bits that were ignored for a time. In English there have been periods when 'more' and 'most' were used in place of '-er' and '-est' and other periods when the suffixes were more popular, as one example.

You reminded me of formal and non-formal language. In all languages that I am aware of, one may drop words where they are safely assumed (and its still polite enough, and except when rude on purpose). In formality, they keep the (I), and I feel confident I can make a sentence unambiguous if I need to, and I can bracket an otherwise ambigous word with conditioners to clean it, if I really need and want to. I just reminded myself of a Frenchman writing indignantly after a battle, the English say one thing and do another. I agree about Chinese, English seems to be the all-in-one, until we can use half words to deliver the same message. Maybe thats next, just noises.. hehe

[PeterL]

You reminded me of formal and non-formal language. In all languages that I am aware of, one may drop words where they are safely assumed (and its still polite enough, and except when rude on purpose). In formality, they keep the (I), and I feel confident I can make a sentence unambiguous if I need to, and I can bracket an otherwise ambigous word with conditioners to clean it, if I really need and want to. I just reminded myself of a Frenchman writing indignantly after a battle, the English say one thing and do another. I agree about Chinese, English seems to be the all-in-one, until we can use half words to deliver the same message. Maybe thats next, just noises.. hehe

The more that I learn about English, the more I like it. As you pointed out, one can be formal or casual in any language, but in English there is more space for both. One can just make some noises, or one can enunciate each sylable. In Chinese the formal detail has largely disappeared (it may still exist, but I have never seen any sign of it.) You could also take an otherwise unambiguous word and surround it with qualifer until its meaning was lost in ambiguity.

[Virgil]

It can help with clarity if precision is what you are after. ‘Sedulous’ and ‘dedicated’ don’t quite mean the same thing. So although more people might understand the latter, what they understand might not be precisely what the writer was aiming for. Obviously some writers will use words to obfuscate or appear clever but the very best writers will use the word most suited to their purpose, rather than one that everyone will understand. I could have said ‘obscure’ instead of ‘obfuscate’ and more people will have understood. But ‘obscure’ doesn’t have the same sense of deliberately making something opaque or confusing that ‘obfuscate’ has.

Does ‘the incessant din of the mundane’ mean exactly the same as any of the following:

The non-stop noise of the commonplace;
The never-ending racket of the everyday;
The endless clamour of the prosaic;
The perpetual cacophony of the humdrum;
The everlasting uproar of the routine;
The interminable hubbub of the habitual?


Mix and match for more options.

Which is easier to understand? Is that one the 'best'?
Your argument is very strong here. The one nagging question I have is that do other languages develop strategies that can come up with each nuance you put forth in your post, but without using a specific word? I can't answer that because I essentially only know english.

[jackyyyy]

The more that I learn about English, the more I like it. As you pointed out, one can be formal or casual in any language, but in English there is more space for both. One can just make some noises, or one can enunciate each sylable. In Chinese the formal detail has largely disappeared (it may still exist, but I have never seen any sign of it.) You could also take an otherwise unambiguous word and surround it with qualifer until its meaning was lost in ambiguity.


I find it strange that they would let do away with formal detail, makes me think the beurocracy is tripping over paper to find the right guy with the same name.

I think this 'space' is due to the latitude provided for in English, which it had to do over the last centuries, to be broad enough to cope with so many cultures. There are practical limits in other languages, despite they may be far richer in vocab. possibilities. BLP mentioned that in other languages, there is another way of thinking. I agree with that comment, and therein rests that other thinking's possibilities until it wants to talk outside of its culture. And, interestingly, differences in interpretations can be so huge some times, makes me understand why we have border control around certain languages - when I see blue, another can see a different shade of blue.

As I understand it, there are actually laws created for every single word in our dictionary, some new ones they are working on. Obsfucating is a deliberate and evil, nasty Dark Vadarish type of clouding, foggying of the meaning, and Obscuring is simply "making obscure", they are different. As for John Doe knowing that, well.. a good writer might prefer to use 2 or 3 words on that occasion.

[PeterL]

I think this 'space' is due to the latitude provided for in English, which it had to do over the last centuries, to be broad enough to cope with so many cultures. There are practical limits in other languages, despite they may be far richer in vocab. possibilities. BLP mentioned that in other languages, there is another way of thinking. I agree with that comment, and therein rests that other thinking's possibilities until it wants to talk outside of its culture. And, interestingly, differences in interpretations can be so huge some times, makes me understand why we have border control around certain languages - when I see blue, another can see a different shade of blue.


I used to think that people thought in language, but last summer I did some research into the matter and came to the conclusion that spoken language is an output language, while the actual thinking is done in a language that the brain uses. As an analogy, spoken language is like ASCII, the ASCII is converted to binary code in Broca's region, the processor (frontal lobe) does its processing of the binary code, the result is sent to Broca's region to be converted back into ASCII, which is expressed. For written language there is an additional step in which images are processed in the visual cortex before being sent to Broca's region for conversion into the brain's analog of binary code. It was that additional step through Broca's region that convinced me that we don't actually think in spoken language.

A language with more words allows its users to have more gradations of meaning, more possibilities for expression.

It isn't so much that the thinking is different in other languages as the translation back into language leads to a different set of definitions. The names for colors are just definitions of visual input. Personally, I consider maroon to be a shade of brown, rather than a shade of red.

Interpretation can be regarded as the ability to relate one thing with other things, and individuals have different capacities for understanding relationships. I like to use another analogy to conceptualize that. Memory is like a spreadsheet in which all of an individual's memories are contained, a three dimensional spreadsheet at that. Interpretation is seeing parallels between different rows and columns. Parallels can be in sound, meaning, reasoning, events, etc.; those parallels create metaphor, rhyme, interpretations, etc.

[jackyyyy]

Yes, all processes being equal, the thinking process is the same.

As I see it, everybody has their own unique language. When I think of a culture, its a grouping of like spoken, like thinking or like whatever people under their heading. Possibly, they all have the same broken lower lip, so they slurr on a certain vowel the same way. I agree, in interpretation we should put the same tags on items of equal value. And, as in the universal arithmetic, we know 2 + 2 must never evolve to 5. However, between languages, it evolves often, '..like knowing two ways of thinking.', its not universal.

The identical twin computers, fed different information, contain still equal capacity but different capability.. then, and at that point, that capacity and the capability is evolved.

I have to work harder to roll my Rs than my French friend, we have different learning. I suggest language and culture are co-dependent and shape each other, causes different input/output, which in turn causes different memory, processes and functions through deterministic evolution.

I headed into AI there, and the word, ' thinking ' needs some thinking.

[PeterL]

Yes, all processes being equal, the thinking process is the same.

As I see it, everybody has their own unique language. When I think of a culture, its a grouping of like spoken, like thinking or like whatever people under their heading. Possibly, they all have the same broken lower lip, so they slurr on a certain vowel the same way. I agree, in interpretation we should put the same tags on items of equal value. And, as in the universal arithmetic, we know 2 + 2 must never evolve to 5. However, between languages, it evolves often, '..like knowing two ways of thinking.', its not universal.

The identical twin computers, fed different information, contain still equal capacity but different capability.. then, and at that point, that capacity and the capability is evolved.

I have to work harder to roll my Rs than my French friend, we have different learning. I suggest language and culture are co-dependent and shape each other, causes different input/output, which in turn causes different memory, processes and functions through deterministic evolution.


While different input will lead to different output, two computers with the same hardware and OS will convert the same input into the same binary that will be fed to the processor. I wasn't saying that two people will come up with the same result, only that the internal encoding is in the same format. That it takes more work for you to roll your R's doesn't say anything about brain function. It says something about the development of muscles and the memory built into the muscles.

I would agree that everyone has an ideolect, but don't mistake that with the way that the brain encodes data for processing. The analogy with a compuer is quite close. Both take data in a form that can be used for interpersonal communication, convert that to a form and language that can be processed, process that, then create output in a human language. Nor should you consider the fact that two people, given the same data to consider, will come up with different results, because their processing will have been afected by different experiences that would push them toward different answers.

[jackyyyy]

Yes, the same binary formated data.. that will be fed to the computer. This is merely storage here, so its a static.

The brain in a human is a muscle.

[PeterL]

Yes, the same binary formated data.. that will be fed to the computer. This is merely storage here, so its a static.

The brain in a human is a muscle.

The brain is also a self-programming computer, but that doesn't change the internal code.

[jackyyyy]

The brain is also a self-programming computer, but that doesn't change the internal code.

Do you mean the "internal code" or the "internal format" ?

The 'internal code', the instructions, the program, the software, is mutable, just like a muscle. Software can educate itself. The "internal format", before Babbage and the amoebas, is binary.

**Instructions sit in binary format too, and both instructions (code) and data are interchangeable.

AI is wonderful stuff.

[PeterL]

Do you mean the "internal code" or the "internal format" ?

The 'internal code', the instructions, the program, the software, is mutable, just like a muscle. Software can educate itself. The "internal format", before Babbage and the amoebas, is binary.

**Instructions sit in binary format too, and both instructions (code) and data are interchangeable.

AI is wonderful stuff.

OK, I should have written "internal coding language", or "internal coding system", or something like that. Instructions and data interact, and both are in the same language or format, but the instruction code can change in response to data. If you have been studying AI, you know exactly what I mean, but I have never formally studied AI, or even thought about it for quite a while. The instruction code is more mutable than muscle, because it can change relatively quickly. Muscles, once they have developed, take a long time to change in shape. That is especially true of some of the smaller muscles, such as those invloved in speech.

[SheykAbdullah]

This is an itneresting topic, and I wanted to chime in on some things that were brought up earlier, if I may disrupt for a moment the discussion about language processing.

I would say that the issue of language and literature is somewhat more solipsistic than has been suggested as of yet. The idea that a person is constrained by the languages he knows is true, but not as it is stated, rather a person's expression is affected by the languages he knows, but not in a positive or negative way (unless your vocabulary is extraordinarily small). I would say that no language is more expressive than any other, inheritly, they are merely differently expressed. To clarify, I speak, and can think, in Persian, Spanish, and English. I speak a couple of other languages to lesser degrees but I am more or less fluent in those three. Now they are all, I would say, equally expressive, and equally built for poetry, but in different ways.

To tale Persian for example. Persian is a language with a fairly large vocabulary, though interestingly enough 60 percent of it is Arabic, while itself is an Indo-European language. As such its very famous poetry has been altered slightly in its expression, and not just culturally. The scanisation of Persian poetry is not only stress based but length based, there being three short vowels and three long vowels. This adds an extra element in the aesthetic appreciation of the poetry and makes its phonoligcal values somewhat more complicated than we find in English, yet, although being an American I may not be one hundred percent impartial, I appreciate the sound of Hafiz and Rudaki as much as I do Donne or Coleridge, despite the fact that the sound of poetry in Persian read aloud is more complex and has a greater sing song quality to it.

Comparing the two to Spanish attacks the issue on another point because the vocabulary of Spanish is smaller than either English or Persian, yet again its literature fails to please. Its poetry and dramas are intensely elegant and passionate, like the people themselves.

What all of this means is that literature and poetry especially are built within a cultural matrix which makes the issue of vocabulary unimportant. Every human being in the world has the same basic constructions around him. He has his family, religion (even if he does not practice it is around), government, environment, etc, and all of these he mus interpret and express through his linguistic means and people being people they will express whatever they can. Since language does not restrict a person's thinking because, as has been mentioned, thinking does not really take place in a language (I must confess I have found my thinking changes not at all whether it is conducted in Persian, English, or Spanish, rather it takes different courses to expression, and ironically I have always found a greater facility in thinking in a language rather than in speaking it), and so people all around the world essentially attempt to express certain ideas which are held in common, love, friendship (to talk of two variations of love which the Persians, for example, seperate but not necesarily so), and in fact do express these ideas regardless of the size of their language's lexicon.

For example, I have a friend of mine who is definitely not a linguist, but whose father is from Nigeria and speaks a relatively rare language called Gokano. The language's lexicon is incredibly small, but to make up for it the speakers use a variety of gestures to clarify their meanings. Now he has always said that it is almost impossible to use to to talk over the phone, but if a Nigerian native ever did odds are he would probably use French or another native language more suitable.

So, in essence, while a language does impact how a person expresses himself, it does not restrict it, and while certain languages like Gokano may be predisposed against certain mediums they are a rare case indeed. Gokano's situation arises because it has no written alphabet and therefore the medium it has been communicated through before perhaps fifty years ago was solely verbal speech. Any literate language, despite its vocabulary restrictions, will have overcome this difficulty otherwise it would completely ineffective as communication, which is what a language is for before it is for literature, poetry, song, or anything else. Language originates as a pragmatic device and operates so even in literature and so it will find a way to function. if it is limited in one way it will become unlimited through another.

Earlier it was pointed out the German is an expressive language. Indeed it is, but so are most Indo-European languages. German however does not owe is expressiveness to a great size of vocabulary, because its pure vocabulary is certainly not more extensive than english, rather it owes it expressive power to the ability it has to combine nouns to form new compounds to create a create specificity of ideas. This is something common to almost all Indor-European languages, including English. Of the Indo-European languages I am familiar with Classical Greek (and I assume modern), Persian, Pashto, English, German, and the Scandinacvian languages all use compounds. Now this is not to say that say other languages suffer as a result of not having compounds, and in fact many other languages, such as Japanese, that are non-Indo-European do (the verb for round trip in Japanese is Itte-ki masu literally to come and go, the word for food is tabe-mono, literally thing to eat). Languages that do not have compounds make up for it in other ways, such as many Semitic languages, Arabic especially, have a construction known as a verbal nouns that is put through different measures to acquire greater expression. To take as an example the Arabic for 'tank' which is dabbaba. This word comes form the verbal root dababa which means 'he crawls' (Arabic does not have infinitives and every word is formed of three, more rarely four, consonants which convey a certain meaning in the case d-b-b conveys the idea of crawling, or k-t-b conveys the idea of written, compared with the Hebrew k-t-v which means the same). Daba moves to dababa, literally crawling machine, by taking the d-b-b and doubling the second consonant, inserting the vowel scheme -a-a- and adding the grammatically feminine marker to the end (which is not a, but rather a marker which changes its phonetic value depending on the grammatical status of the word). These changes create the idea of a 'machine that performs -." Thus, while Arabic's vocabulary may be smaller than English (I don;t know for sure) if I word is desperately needed by a poet or novellist that doesn't exist he may create one, just as we may by using compounds, prefixes, or suffixes. In fact, Arabic has some seven measures that are commonly used that convey meanings such as a place where something is done, an adjective, several measure for the varying degrees of a person who does something, the verbal form, the noun form, and measures for the idea of reflexivity in the verbal noun (as these roots and their derivitives are called).

Through this long explanation I hope you understand what I am saying, even if it bogged down in what is, perhaps, a mire of detail. Language is such an intricate part of the human being and his existence that the idea of one language being more restrictive than another is not entirely true, and for various reason impossible outside of certain specific circumstances (obviously a non-written language like Gokano will not suffice to write a novel in, but then that was never a need of its speakers). We all may have certain aesthetic tastes. Personally, I don;t like the way German sounds, which I supose predisposes me to dislike German poetry, but that does not impact the ability of someone to express an idea within its medium.

[SleepyWitch]

I've also read that German is 'the language of philosophy' and, again, I have no way of judging that myself, but at least one German I've asked agreed and said it was because the precision of the language allowed for great clarity of expression.



well, I wouldn't be too sure about that... you hear that argument a lot (it's a bit of a commonplace in Germany actually...). but i normally find academic or referene texts easier to read in English... in German, people use a lot of empty word material that doesn't make any contribution to the meaning of the sentence and lots of times I find myself wondering what it is they're talking about...e.g. a German guy is likely to write something that translates as "The design of the phonetic level of the language is also interesting" when design does _not_ mean anything like structure etc.. the German word (Gestaltung) implies that the phonetic level was either created by somebody or designed by e.g. an artist, but in fact it's not supposed to mean anything in this sentences...
you get this kind of thing in German all the time...
plus, it's easy to form new words, especially compounds, and with many of them it's not at all clear what they mean... lots of German compounds could mean anything (one of their meanings might even be the opposite of another one!) and people just make them up on the spot and use them in texts, especially in academic writing... :goof:

[PeterL]

plus, it's easy to form new words, especially compounds, and with many of them it's not at all clear what they mean... lots of German compounds could mean anything (one of their meanings might even be the opposite of another one!) and people just make them up on the spot and use them in texts, especially in academic writing... :goof:

Alas, the same is true in English.

[jackyyyy]

So, in essence, while a language does impact how a person expresses himself, it does not restrict it



so even in literature and so it will find a way to function. if it is limited in one way it will become unlimited through another.




Earlier it was pointed out the German is an expressive language. Indeed it is, but so are most Indo-European languages. German however does not owe is expressiveness to a great size of vocabulary, because its pure vocabulary is certainly not more extensive than english, rather it owes it expressive power to the ability it has to combine nouns to form new compounds to create a create specificity of ideas.


I think you clarified it. If he can't use a telephone, he sends an email. If he doen't have a computer, his buddy does. If he cannot type in English, he will type in Arabic. If his listener cannot understand him, he will write it down, if he cannot write, he will find someone who can. All humans will adapt, adapt the language, invent new words, sounds, whatever it takes, in order to express themselves. I had to learn how to use a new cell phone recently, just so I could express myself the way I wanted. To answer the original thread question; so, Shakespeare could have been German, Persian or even ??Gokano??. I guess, but, he wasn't for some reason, and the reason was nothing to do with a particular language.

If we jump back to the mid 1500s, writers were stuck between a hard place, Latin, French, German, Celt, Welsh, Scotish, Irish and the latest invading pirates. Maybe there is 'an' answer, the wordsmith had so many tools at his disposal (plus a 100 wars/hangings a month going on) his 'expression' became all the more potent for it. And, he was a very expressive kind of guy too. What do you think?

[SheykAbdullah]

I think you clarified it. If he can't use a telephone, he sends an email. If he doen't have a computer, his buddy does. If he cannot type in English, he will type in Arabic. If his listener cannot understand him, he will write it down, if he cannot write, he will find someone who can. All humans will adapt, adapt the language, invent new words, sounds, whatever it takes, in order to express themselves. I had to learn how to use a new cell phone recently, just so I could express myself the way I wanted. To answer the original thread question; so, Shakespeare could have been German, Persian or even ??Gokano??. I guess, but, he wasn't for some reason, and the reason was nothing to do with a particular language.

If we jump back to the mid 1500s, writers were stuck between a hard place, Latin, French, German, Celt, Welsh, Scotish, Irish and the latest invading pirates. Maybe there is 'an' answer, the wordsmith had so many tools at his disposal (plus a 100 wars/hangings a month going on) his 'expression' became all the more potent for it. And, he was a very expressive kind of guy too. What do you think?


I would say that the popularity of Shakespeare is not due to his intrinsic ability to write or to compose poetry alone, but rather it is because he is generally considered to be the best writer in the English language and you can find English speakers anywhere in the world, so what you have with Shakespeare is arguably the most popular writer in what is a very popular langauge, and a language that is fast becoming, and I would argue is, the language of the international intellectual, who are the people that read. It is interesting to consider, I think, the fact that are many Shakespeares in the world for many languages, all equal to his ability and maybe many greater, but not as popular because how many people speak Tamazight or Azeri, for example? So maybe Shakespeare is not THE best guy, he was just the best guy for the right situation. After all, writing is more related to talent than to a language you speak. On top of all of this, maybe there is a Chinese playwright more popular than Shakespeare, I've always heard the majority of the world speaks Chinese, so it could be possible. In the West traditional Chinese literature isn't very popular.

For a hypothetical example, you can take two people with relatively similiar vocabulary sizes who speak two different languages and one will most probably write better than the other (assuming this is something that can be quantified), but if you took a different pair representing the same language sets the result may be flipped. Surely if great literature were a function of language and vocabularies you would get the same result everytime? Or take someone like a scientist with a huge vocabulary who doesn't write, and take someone with a mediocre vocabulary who does. Who will churn out the best piece? This is proof that regardless of language talent rules.

The thing about language and people that has always struck me is that we are all ultimately so similiar. You could be from Stratford-upon-Avon, like our Shakespeare, and meet someone from the darkest regions of the Congo and after a little time with an open mind and some linguistic ability understand one another perfectly with almost no effort. They may have been raised under a different flag, God, life, diet, and occupation than you, but we are all biologically and mentally wired in such similiar ways we all generally come up with right around the same answers given the right stimuli. You may not agree with him in the end because you are not him, but you will iunderstand one another perfectly, unless of course either of you suffers from a neurosis.

[jackyyyy]

I think, the fact that are many Shakespeares in the world for many languages, all equal to his ability and maybe many greater, but not as popular because how many people speak Tamazight or Azeri, for example?



After all, writing is more related to talent than to a language you speak. On top of all of this, maybe there is a Chinese playwright more popular than Shakespeare, I've always heard the majority of the world speaks Chinese, so it could be possible. In the West traditional Chinese literature isn't very popular.


For a hypothetical example, you can take two people with relatively similiar vocabulary sizes who speak two different languages and one will most probably write better than the other (assuming this is something that can be quantified),

I am agreeing with you, but do not follow the hypo example. Let me ask you this: If two people with different languages had equal talent (assuming complete fairness here, and they were even identical twins), but different size vocabs because of language, would that then mean one has more tools than the other, and, would that difference then make a difference to his literary quality?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Does the best craftsman always have the most tools? Are the best artists the ones with the most brushes and the biggest selection of different coloured paints? Are players of 12 string guitars intrinsically better than those making do with 6 strings?

I hope the answer to the above is obvious. So why should a writer that uses "acquires", "obtains" or "procures" be better than the one that says "gets"? What matters is that they are saying what they mean to say and that this affects the reader (the way it is meant to, or otherwise).

[SheykAbdullah]

I am agreeing with you, but do not follow the hypo example. Let me ask you this: If two people with different languages had equal talent (assuming complete fairness here, and they were even identical twins), but different size vocabs because of language, would that then mean one has more tools than the other, and, would that difference then make a difference to his literary quality?

Isn't there more to writing than mere vocabulary? A book is rather more than a mass of words, it is a mass of words artfully arranged, for example,

A black box was placed on the table. Longitudinally it was twelve inches and laterally it was six. Its height was four inches. There were words printed upon its surface using some kind of artificial golden ink and these were printed upon the cube in an intaglio technique. They were not legible as a result of the obscuration of the room's primary light source by some unidentified object.

Is somewhat less artistic and interesting to read than say,

A black box sat on the table. It was small, only a matter of a foot long, maybe half a foot wide, and shorter than that. Something was written on it in gold letters recessed into the surface, but a shadow was cast over the words and they could not be read.

The first uses more vocabulary, and a higher register of vocabulary at that. Its description is infinitely more precise. It has, as you mentioned, more tools at the writer's disposal, yet would you read a book that was written like that? Note how the second decsription is less precise, shorter, and less technical, but did any of that really impact your ability to imagine the box? You may not have seen a box four inches tall, but you saw one less than six. Odds are less than six would mean you would see somewhere around three, still close enough not to impact understanding.

Of course, you may very well have liked the first description better, which brings up another point. Can we really say Shakespeare is better than any other writer? Personally, I don't care much for Shakespeare aside form Hamlet and Macbeth. I much prefer Shaw and Zuckmayer for playwrites and for literary styles people like Greene and Hammett. In fact, personally, and I realize this is apostasy, I think their style is better, but then again, and not to say I don't understand Shakespeare, I like the hard boiled school of writing better than sonnets because, well, they are easier to not only understand but sympathize with. So, in the end who is to say Shakespeare wrote better than anyone? Literature is entirely subjective, and so who is to say an English Shakespeare wrote better than a Japanese Seami, or an English Shaw, a Norwegian Ibsen, or a Greek Euripides?

[The Unnamable]

Does the best craftsman always have the most tools? Are the best artists the ones with the most brushes and the biggest selection of different coloured paints? Are players of 12 string guitars intrinsically better than those making do with 6 strings?

I hope the answer to the above is obvious. So why should a writer that uses "acquires", "obtains" or "procures" be better than the one that says "gets"? What matters is that they are saying what they mean to say and that this affects the reader (the way it is meant to, or otherwise).


The first uses more vocabulary, and a higher register of vocabulary at that. Its description is infinitely more precise. It has, as you mentioned, more tools at the writer's disposal, yet would you read a book that was written like that?
With regard to the question I first asked in this thread, I think these points need qualifying.

Firstly, no, the best craftsmen don’t need the most tools but it will certainly help if they have the best tools at their disposal. When I first owned a car, I used to service and maintain it myself to save money. Some jobs were impossible without the relevant specialised tools. Adapting the way another tool is used meant that I could manage some jobs but not always without leaving a nut head gnarled.

The six strings versus twelve strings comparison is not really the same at all – it’s more like comparing the number of different pens two writers have. Surely the sounds able to be generated rather than the number of strings would be a better analogy for language?

It’s not that a writer who uses ‘acquires’ is a better writer than one who uses ‘gets’, simply by virtue of using them regardless of context. As I said above, particular synonyms don’t have identical meanings. If the only word you have is ‘gets’, you won’t have the same capacity to generate nuances as someone with the other three words in addition to ‘gets’. Joseph Conrad uses more adjectives than most writers and I think Heart Of Darkness is better for them.

The box description analogy also ignores the context. One piece of writing is not, per se, better than another by virtue of the number of precise words used. It depends entirely on what impression you wish to convey.

Look at a text most ;) Americans know – The Gettysburg Address. The language of the Address is ceremonial and formal. In many details it echoes the religious sentiments associated with the King James translation of the Bible. This can be seen in the biblical tone and phrasing of the first paragraph where eighty-seven years ago becomes "Fourscore and seven years ago". In a different context this could simply be pompous but here it achieves an important purpose.

And no, I wouldn’t want to read a novel written n the style of the box description but then nor would I just want to read Hemingway’s style. I can only take so much Ernie.

As for Shakespeare, you appear to be talking about personal taste. Part of what I enjoy is the creative use of language but I’m more engaged by the way language is used to explore and reveal thoughts and character. Sometimes, a very ordinary word indeed can be the best one to use:

OTHELLO: What hath he said?

IAGO: 'Faith, that he did--I know not what he did.

OTHELLO: What? what?

IAGO: Lie--

OTHELLO: With her?

IAGO: With her, on her; what you will.


Iago’s use of that simple word, ‘on’ pushes Othello over the edge. It’s extremely powerful in the context.

[jackyyyy]

Are players of 12 string guitars intrinsically better than those making do with 6 strings?
That killed the size of vocab. argument, however, 'tools' here would be the number of chords he knows, as I have a fatter pen or dictionary to pull all the words I want and increase my level of expression. The 12 stringer can take 6 off if he wants to, to increase his range of style. What your analogy brought to mind, is style, preference and occasion.



The first uses more vocabulary, and a higher register of vocabulary at that. Its description is infinitely more precise. It has, as you mentioned, more tools at the writer's disposal, yet would you read a book that was written like that? Note how the second decsription is less precise, shorter, and less technical, but did any of that really impact your ability to imagine the box? You may not have seen a box four inches tall, but you saw one less than six. Odds are less than six would mean you would see somewhere around three, still close enough not to impact understanding.

If, for arguments sake, both pieces do the same job, the colour of these messages is different. I prefer the second because its easier to read, but on occasion I might prefer the first because its more colourful. Let me ask it another way, thanking your example: If the first writer has the choice of writing either way (because he knows more words, has more tools), and the second can only write in his one way, then the first can be said to have more option? .. and 'which' option, is ultimately decided by style, preference and occasion??

[Xamonas Chegwe]

What your analogy brought to mind, is style, preference and occasion.

Which is really all it was meant to do.

I was thinking of Hubert Selby Jr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Selby) An author from a difficult background with a limited education. He never used 'fancy' words and rarely even bothered with punctuation. His books though are breathtaking in their honesty and savage humanity. 'Last Exit to Brooklyn' is a work absolute genius. If you haven't read it, I would add it to the list of books that must be read.

[SheykAbdullah]

I apologize if I was not clear in my last couple of postings, but what I have been saying is what you are saying exactly, however, assuming we are talking about literature, how many people in the world want to read The Heart of Darkness, for example, as a scientific pamphlet?

However, literature is such a subjective thing I think it is quite impossible to claim one writer is better than another, and even more impossible to say objectively one writer is any better than another. Is a Renoir better than a Picasso? A Carravaggio better than a Modigliani? Depending on your outlook Seurat either was a genius or an idiot who liked dots.

However, certain things can be generally agreed on, and some notes of style reign supreme. After all, a medical illustrator is not a fine artist when doing his craft. It is not until he dispatches with the pencil that he creates what would commonly be called art.

But the point of my example was not merely to show that one form of writing is better, just that the most complex forms that rely on a large vocabulary are not necesarily the best, or the most exciting to read. After all, in a novel of several hundred pages or a play of several hundred lines what does the infinitely shaded difference between 'to get' and 'to acquire' really mean? Even supposing it is crucial to use one or the other, if one is lacking in your vocabulay there certainly is a way to convey what you're saying in a different way. That is art, and that is what seperates Conrad, since we use him so often, from Danielle Steele, or Delacroix from a Duchamp, or even Miles Davis from Tchaikovski.

[maqsood hasni]

The language is a strong element of pride for the people. They claim that their language is the best, easy for learning and expression. Their language can express all kinds of thoughts and events. Unfortunately, they express their thinkings about their language for the blind. They never try to learn or know about other languages. Especially now a days people use the dictionary as a perametere for this purpose. They think that their language has words count a lot in other languages later. No doubt, it is certainly a strong argument and rationale for their declaration.

I mentioned some where that dictionary is not a useful instrument for the expression or to learn the meanings of a word. It is a source for just over a side or to know a few meanings of a word. But it is not a complete and reliable source for understanding words. Words their pronunciations, meanings and different uses can be culculated only into the streat life. Streat and book languages are different from each other. Book can not provide mixsimum informitions required about words.

Every language is a representative of a land and its culture. The language is bound to follow the needs of a man, thoughts, new events and other situations in progress. But man is not obliged to follow the words as words are intended to hold the finger of the minds of his people and their souls.

Territory and culture of each language has many small groups and cultural objectives. These different cultural groups are:

1-
a- thinking preferences
b. castes
c. religions
d. Lifestyles
e. thoughts
f. socity involvement
g. political events
h. methods gain
g. taste for good or bad

2-
a- knoweldge
b- resources of earnigs
c- Art
d- Work Unit
e- Workplaces
f- Indoor activities
g- Games
h- shows

Under these infulences facts and circumstances, a language must move towards his goal.
Users of a language:

1 - use words as their needs and requirements
2 - say the words in different pronunciations
3 - get very different meanings at different places, event and situations of the words

It is barely unsufficient for poets, writers of fiction or drama, historical, political, etc.,to aproch all mini cultues. In this way, he can not detect streat words from different cultures and mini groups of a big cultural set up. For this reason, dictionary always remain a failure machine to collect complete deta about words of streat, their meanings and usages, but behind the record of unculculated word of the street remains in the street. After knowing this fact no one can say with full responsibility that the dictionary is a parametere to compare the words and figure to be counted.

In the present age, English is a dominant and ruling language in the world. A class dictionaries are avaiable in the markets. But these two items mentioned above, do not make it the bigest and the largest language in the world. These two elements are in English, can not claim that English literature is unparalleled in other languages to compare.

In the present era more then half population of the world is speaking Chinese. This language has not less then lacs words in chenese literary and none literary books. Besides this fact, hundreds of words can be searched which are wondering in the streat and are waiting for their forms of book. But this thing can not demonstrate that the Chinese is the bigest and the largest language in the world. Reasons is that this language has not massive sounds controls. For none availble sounds, substitutes sounds are alway got the room.

Hindustani/Bar-and-Sagirian (Hindi+Urdu) is the second most spoken language in the world. This language can be judged by different ways. For example:
1- It has more than 63 basic sounds
2- More than 123 compounds of sounds
3- This languages is comparetively more social then other languages of the World
4- It met and took a breath under infulence dozens cultures (1)
5- Its languistics rules and devices allow to its speaker to make pural by different ways.
6- In this strange language singuler can be spoken of pural
7- Many words have dozens of decisions and meanings
8- Many words has dozens of their uses
9- Many words have their dozens forms and verities
10- Many words have meanings that have dozens more space in books.
11- There huhundreds ways to make new words
12- masadars (2) can be used with the words of other languages (3)
13- lok said, adverbs and masadars are still under culculation.
14- Masadar can be made up by a adition of composed sound "na" after a verb
15- Kay ki can be added to make a name of a place (4)
16- Ka can be used after a verb/noun for the female names (5)
17- Arts have an important and respectable place in the life of a man
living in the subcontinent.
18- It 's full of substitutes
19- Compound noun can be done easily by the adition of compound sound kar.(6)
Subcontinent is a beautiful land where the art has a certainly very important. Even a common man unconsciously put his hand in the arts.

I have a lot of topics and noted the reference in my previous postings. The words that took place in books and dictionaries are hundreds times more than other languages of the world. With reference to cuculation of words it can be easily declared that Hindustani is the bigest and the largest language in the world. But no one should blindly declere this statement because this area has still sincere and serious need for further research.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 - Iraqi, Unani, Arabic, Chinese, Turkish, Afghani, Russian, French Walandaizi,
Duch purtaghali, Irani, Aryae, Tatars, etc.
2 - infinite
3 - advice karna, advice Daina, tip laina, capture karna , capture Hona, help Milna
help laina, help Daina, help karna, kill karna, kill hona, etc.
this attitude and language set set-up is not found in the languages of the world .

4- Patoki, Kamoki, ghoeinki, satoki
jamkay, moreedkay, badhaekay

5- Devika, Anamika, merrika, Ritika,rozika
6- Dinkar parbhakar, diyakar, Atakar, Ziakar, Shankar