|
|
English has less words than french for a same description?
A - S : « Zarbi= Bizarre ».
On pourrait décliner davantage encore : zarb, zarbi, bizarre, bizarroïde etc.
Sans compter les mots parfaitement homophones et homographes comme <tasse> :
[1] {petit récipient à anse ou à oreilles, dont on se sert pour absorber une boisson, généralement chaude}
[2] {bonheur ; réussite}
[3] {pétasse ; poufiasse}
[4] {toilettes publiques ; pissotières ; vespasiennes}.
<<Non, tu n'as pas compris. Relis deux ou trois messages plus haut. Tu confonds toujours le lexique avec les dictionnaires. Prétendre que l'allemand ne dispose que de 185.000 mots (quelle précision d'ailleurs...) est une idiotie qui fait florès dans le monde anglo-saxon.>>
You're right, of course. I was just tired of people trading lists of vaguely-connected words to "prove" that their language is better. I think English probably does have more words because of the many different sources of its vocabulary, but clearly not ten times as many as French. In the end though, how many words a langue has is really an arbitrary decision: are technical words to be included? If so, in what fields? What about slang? Etc., Etc. A more useful test would be to take a certain text, like the Bible for example, and see how many unique words are used in it in each language.
I agree.
We should focus on the number of ways to express subtleties of meaning.
For instance, English has the word 'fell' meaning 'fierce/cruel', which is basically used in only one sense: '[with one] fell stroke'/'fell swoop'. Other than that one sense, I have never heard it used with this meaning. One doesn't normally say: "She was fell to me"/'She treated me fell[-ly]". English is rife in such restricted usages for certain terms.
Josh Lalonde : « I think English probably does have more words because of the many different sources of its vocabulary (...) ».
Ce rasionnement est faux, lui aussi. Tu confonds le nombre de sources avec le nombre de langues. Par exemple l'anglais a *emprunté* au latin : ça fait une source pour une langue. Le français a *hérité* du latin et lui a *emprunté* également : ça fait deux sources pour une langue.
D'autre part, ce n'est pas parce que la langue A possède 10 sources tandis que la langue B n'aurait que 5 sources, que la vocabulaire de A serait plus important que celui de B. Il suffit pour cela que le vocabulaire issu de l'une des 10 sources de la langue A remplace celui d'une autre (ou plusieurs autres) sources de cette même langue A. Ainsi l'anglais a perdu 80 % du fonds anglo-saxon originel à cause de l'influence du français puis du latin : il n'a pas cumulé deux fonds lexicaux.
>>Par exemple l'anglais a *emprunté* au latin : ça fait une source pour une langue. Le français a *hérité* du latin et lui a *emprunté* également : ça fait deux sources pour une langue. <<
So too has English borrowed and "inherited" from Latin making two sources. So, using the number of sources isn't a good argument either.
>>Exemple : <frêle> & <fragile> sont issus du ***MÊME*** étymon latin. En conséquence, le français possède ***DEUX*** sources latines, pas une.<<
Using your argument of ***TWO*** sources, English also has "frail" and "fragile".
*Using your argument => Using your example
« Guest » : « Using your argument of ***TWO*** sources, English also has "frail" and "fragile". ».
Eh non ! Ça ne fait qu'une source : la langue française.
« Guest » : « So too has English borrowed and "inherited" from Latin making two sources. So, using the number of sources isn't a good argument either. »
Non plus. L'anglais n'a rien hérité du latin puisque l'anglais n'est pas une langue latine.
I didn't mean to imply a causal relationship between size of vocabulary and number of sources. What I meant was simply that English words often have many synonyms from different sources. There might be an Anglo-Saxon, a Norman French and a Latin word all with similar meanings but somewhat different connotations. But like I said before, the number of words in any given language is an arbitrary decision.
Josh Lalonde : « There might be an Anglo-Saxon, a Norman French and a Latin word all with similar meanings but somewhat different connotations. »
On peut parvenir au même résultat avec des sources uniquement latines. Au passage, l'expression "Norman French" ne veut pas dire grand chose.
Siamo alle solite: la classica, snervante ed infantile discussione su quale lingua sia più difficile: perchè alla fine, diciamola tutta, lo scopo finale di questo topic è proprio questo, ossia stabilire se l'inglese sia più facile del francese o viceversa.
Quello che io mi continuo a chiedere è: ma chissene!!!!!!?????? Il francese e l'inglese sono due lingue distinte e separate, largamente usate e parlate in tutto il pianeta; non sono sicuramente annoverabili fra le lingue più difficili al mondo, ma questo, a mio avviso, non ha la banchè minima importanza......Sono troppo curioso di sapere perchè un parigino o un belga o uno di ginevra dovrebbero sentirsi offesi se qualcuno ritenesse che l'inglese sia più complesso del francese, che abbia un numero maggiore o minore di termini per descrivere qualcosa: cosa diamine cambia??????????
Mi ha fatto rabbrividire il commento di qualcuno che diceva che parlare una lingua semplice è uno svantaggio perchè tutti ti possono facilmente capire e se ti trovassi all'estero non potresti o a contatto con stranieri potresti essere preso in giro ma non prendere in giro: ma che scherziamo?????????????????????
>>Eh non ! Ça ne fait qu'une source : la langue française.<<
You're just messing around with semantics for the sake of arguing; if you're going to be like that then technically they come from Middle French, not French. Then let me guess, you will probably argue there is no such thing as Middle French.
Anyway, essentially <frêle> & <fragile> both come from the same Latin source: "fragilis" whether inherited, borrowed or otherwise convoluted. There are plenty of English words that are derived from other English words as well.
>>Non plus. L'anglais n'a rien hérité du latin puisque l'anglais n'est pas une langue latine.<<
Looking at it that way is silly. You could play the same game with English "inheriting" from its Germanic origin.
You will always be able make up greater numbers for the English language and it's not just dictionaries that will confirm this, as obviously on a world scale, it is used in more endeavours and cultures than the French language.
BTW, Sarkozy for the win. (I voted for him and will again.)
« Guest » : « Anyway, essentially <frêle> & <fragile> both come from the same Latin source: "fragilis" whether inherited, borrowed or otherwise convoluted. »
Nous sommes d'accord sur la première partie de ta phrase. Mais certainement pas sur la seconde : <frêle> est du latin évolué jusqu'à présent (ce que le français a fait de <fragilis>) tandis que <fragile> est un emprunt d'une forme latine figée (qui est d'ailleurs susceptible d'évolutions ultérieures).
« Guest » : « Looking at it that way is silly. You could play the same game with English "inheriting" from its Germanic origin. »
Tu es libre de considérer tout cela comme un jeu idiot si ça t'arrange. Il n'en demeure pas moins vrai que seul le français a hérité du latin. En revanche le français et l'anglais ont emprunté au latin ; le second sous l'influence du pemier d'ailleurs.
« Guest » : « You will always be able make up greater numbers for the English language and it's not just dictionaries that will confirm this, as obviously on a world scale, it is used in more endeavours and cultures than the French language. »
Si tu es si sûr de ce que tu affirmes, j'imagine que tu n'auras aucune peine à le démontrer.
>>Nous sommes d'accord sur la première partie de ta phrase. Mais certainement pas sur la seconde : <frêle> est du latin évolué jusqu'à présent (ce que le français a fait de <fragilis>) tandis que <fragile> est un emprunt d'une forme latine figée (qui est d'ailleurs susceptible d'évolutions ultérieures).
Tu es libre de considérer tout cela comme un jeu idiot si ça t'arrange. Il n'en demeure pas moins vrai que seul le français a hérité du latin. En revanche le français et l'anglais ont emprunté au latin ; le second sous l'influence du pemier d'ailleurs. <<
So what about absolute linguistic legacies? I'm not denying that but it doesn't change my point over your breakdown, which is that one can find any number of ways of cooking up "sources": I happened to use Middle French and French to your "fixed form of Latin" and "ever-evolving form of Latin". And like I said before, English has its own Germanic "inheritence" to counteract that of French's.
>>Si tu es si sûr de ce que tu affirmes, j'imagine que tu n'auras aucune peine à le démontrer.<<
Well, why don't you prove it otherwise? Why don't you show that not all general language dictionaries aren't "made the same" as you have asserted. At least I have substantiated my argument by the fact that English has more speakers and is used in more geographical areas and undertakings globally than French. So following in this idea, one can deduce that more speakers of a language equates to a greater vocabulary, compared to that of another with fewer speakers.
For instance, in IT, French has to catch up on its technobabble each year (or however so often) because most of the work done in computing is conducted in English. This means there will always be a lagging period for French vocabulary in this field.
<<
One can deduce that more speakers of a language equates to a greater vocabulary, compared to that of another with fewer speakers.
>>
The total and official number of words in the french language is around 700,000 and with technical words :1,000,000 (Equally with English):
http://www.weblettres.net/spip/article.php3?id_article=552
Stop SAYING BULLLLSHIIIIITTTTSSSS and saying that english has a "greater vocabulary" is false!
With your deduction, we can say that Spanish has more vocabularies than English, because there are more native Spanish speakers than native English speakers...
Le français est parlé dans les 5 continents (6 si on ajoute la base française Dumont D'Urville en Antartique), et a autant de variantes que l'anglais si ce n'est plus!
Prouve moi qu'il y a plus de créoles anglais que de créoles français?
Même en Amérique les variantes dialectales du français foisonnent: le Cajun, Terre-Neuvien, Acadien, Quebecois...
Généralement, le français lors des multiples colonisations, a eu tendance, plus que l'anglais, à se métisser avec les langues autochtones et former des mélanges avec les autres peuples.
Les amérindiens dont les célèbres Sioux (nom français d'origine) ont connu de très bonnes relations avec les français, beaucoup de ces indiens les ayant cotoyés, gardèrent un nom français comme symbole. comme les Brulés, les Minniconjou, les Sans-Arcs, Montagnais, Sauvages de l'Isle, Cris, Carrier, Malécites ou Étchemins, Souriquois ou Micmacs, Nation du Chat ou (Erié), Saulteaux, Nez Percé, et d'autres...
------------------
French is spoken in 5 continents (6 if we add the French base Dumont D'Urville in Antartica), and has so many variants as English has, maybe more!
French is a global language too...
Prove I that there are more English Creoles than French Creoles?
Even in America the dialectal variants of French abound: Cajun, Terre-Neuvien, Acadian, Quebecois...
Generally, French during the multiple colonizations, tended, more than English, to cross with the autochtonous languages and to form a mix with the other peoples.
The Amerindians whose Sioux (French name of origin) knew very good relations with French, and they kept a French name as symbol.
As les Brulés, les Minniconjoux, les Sans-Arcs, Montagnais, Sauvages de l'Isle, Cris, Carrier, Malécites ou Étchemins, Souriquois ou Micmacs, Nation du Chat ou (Erié), Saulteaux, Nez Percé, and many others...
|