test your english vocabulary size
Xah Lee
a very fun exercise.
Test your English Vocabulary Size
http://xahlee.blogspot.com/2011/07/test-your-english-vocabulary-size.html
plain text version follows:
--------------------------------------------
A very nice vocabulary testing page. Test your vocabulary here:
http://testyourvocab.com/.
There are 3 pages, but actually just 2 pages of testing. (the 3rd page
is optional survey on Age, Gender, etc.) Be sure to take 10 minutes
for the test. And, be honest. Don't check if you are not certain about
the word's meanings.
After you've done the test, it'll give you a score, which is a
estimate of how many words you know. My score, turns out to be 24.5k
words. This score is actually below average english-speaking adults,
according to their survey. Quote:
Based on over 8,000 participations so far, we've got some initial
statistics already. Most adults fall in the range 20,000–35,000, with
the exact median score being 27,123 words.
I went thru the list carefully. The first page is trivial, the hard
ones are in second page. On second page, almost none of the words in
the last column i know of. But most others i've seen, half of it i
forgot what it means without context. Those i didn't check-mark.
I was rather surprised by my below-average score, since i have 2
decades obsession with vocabulary size. From my experience, my
vocabulary size is probably average, or slight above college educated
adults. I'm guessing, most people simply put a check-mark on words
they think they know, but actually is wrong. If the test actually give
a multiple-choice question for each word, am sure the score will be
much lower.
See also, collection of about 5k words with usage examples. Wordy
English — the Making of Belles-Lettres
----------------------------------------------
for people here (alt.usage.english), am sure many will do much better
than me. Score it and let us know what you think!
(PS sorry if this is already mentioned or discussed?)
Xah ∑ http://xahlee.org/
abzorba
Yes, this has come up before, and I can answer each question
correctly. This is not cause for self-congratulation - I think just
about any native speaker could, and certainly every native speaker who
frequents aue. The invitation to submit details at the end suggest
this "quiz" is the thin edge of a plan to co-opt people for commercial
purposes. I don't like it, and I don't think that this is the place
for it.
Myles (although getting 100% gives me a bit of thrill anyway -
Uxoricide was the hardest) Paulsen
Peter Brooks
>
> There are 3 pages, but actually just 2 pages of testing. (the 3rd page
> is optional survey on Age, Gender, etc.)
>
gender of the words.
x
823375...@g5g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> A very nice vocabulary testing page. Test your vocabulary here:
> http://testyourvocab.com/.
Not. It's too ambiguous. There are too many words people recognize and
know well enough to understand in context, and to vaguely understand out
of context, but which they would want to look up before using them in
formal writing. There is no clear dividing line between knowing a word
and not knowing it. Therefore your score depends partly on your mood.
If you're in a mood to be extremely strict, your score might be
dramatically lower than if you're in a mood to get a high score.
For example, you might know that a barnacle is an animal that tends to
attach itself to a boat. But you might not know what animal it is, nor
whether there are other kinds of animals that also tend to attach
themselves to boats. In that case, do you know the word "barnacle" or
not? Some people would say yes, because "an animal that tends to attach
itself to a boat" is a reasonable definition. Other people would say no,
unless you know barnacles well enough to be able to recognize them even
when they aren't attached to boats.
Or what if you recognize the words "trollop" and "slut" and know what
they mean when you read them, but are not sure how they differ from each
other? In that case, do you know both words or neither? You would have
to be extremely strict in that case to say someone doesn't know those
words just because they're not sure how they differ from each other. If
the person says they mean approximately the same thing as each other,
does that indicate that the person knows both words, even with no
knowledge of what that "approximate" is?
Thus the test is practically worthless, and the scores are practically
meaningless. For it to be a valid test, people with larger vocabularies
would have to get higher scores than people with smaller vocabularies,
even when they were in a mood to be stricter.
Xah Lee
On Jul 17, 3:39 am, abzorba <myles...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Yes, this has come up before, and I can answer each question
> correctly. This is not cause for self-congratulation - I think just
> about any native speaker could, and certainly every native speaker who
> frequents aue.
you sure that's not slightly exaggerated ?
the 2nd page, last column, i know just one of the words. (took the
test 3 times. The word orders differ slightly each time, but i think
it's largely the same set of words)
here's the last column (4th) of 2nd page.
braggadocio
bruit
embonpoint
pabulum
pother
valetudinarian
cenacle
vibrissae
cantle
estivation
regnant
terpsichorean
clerisy
deracinate
fuliginous
oneiromancy
tatterdemalion
williwaw
caitiff
funambulist
hypnopompic
opsimath
pule
uxoricide
Except the word “braggadocio” that i know well, the others i don't
have vague memory of.
i am a word buff, but i know there are many serious readers who read
all novel classics or modern ones daily for most of their lives. These
people might know all these words. But am not certain, that even just
half of alt.usage.english regulars would know all these words.
> The invitation to submit details at the end suggest
> this "quiz" is the thin edge of a plan to co-opt people for commercial
> purposes. I don't like it, and I don't think that this is the place
> for it.
interesting point of view. Though, am not sure it's justified. Asking
for age, gender, birth place, ESL, is reasonable and relevant with the
stated goal of such survey. Perhaps such survey is done to death and
the result is already well known among the vocabulary communities,
that this site is just pop rehash for little trivial fun, but the site
isn't filled with ads, or any at all (yet?)... so am not so quick to
call them out.
> Myles (although getting 100% gives me a bit of thrill anyway -
> Uxoricide was the hardest) Paulsen
Xah
Dr Nick
> you sure that's not slightly exaggerated ?
>
> the 2nd page, last column, i know just one of the words. (took the
> test 3 times. The word orders differ slightly each time, but i think
> it's largely the same set of words)
>
> here's the last column (4th) of 2nd page.
That certainly looks like it from when I did it (and got a vocabulary
of, to all intents and purposes 40k words).
For each I'll mark what I did when I did the test, and a more detailed
to check to see how right I was (after all, I may think I know the
meaning of a word and don't!) showing the meaning I was thinking of
> braggadocio
I said I knew this, and I do (noisy swagger)
> bruit
I said I didn't, and I don't
> embonpoint
I said I knew this, and I do (a fancy word for a nice bosom)
> pabulum
I said I knew this, and I do (soft food for infants and the elderly, bread and milk or similar)
> pother
I said I didn't know this, but actually I do (it's not that different to
some senses of bother - I knew it as an Irish word for something!)
> valetudinarian
this was vaguely familiar, but I said "no" and don't recognise it on
looking it up
> cenacle
I didn't know this
> vibrissae
I know this (a mouse's whiskers)
> cantle
I didn't know this
> estivation
I know this (like hibernation but through summer)
> regnant
> terpsichorean
I know this (ponderous word for dancing)
> clerisy
I didn't know this
> deracinate
I didn't know this out of context
> fuliginous
I didn't know this
> oneiromancy
I didn't know this, but it's clearly predicting the future in some
obscure way
> tatterdemalion
I knew this - dressed in rags
> williwaw
I said I didn't know this, but if pressed I'd have said a wind, and it is.
> caitiff
I didn't know this
> funambulist
I know this (sleepwalker)
> hypnopompic
I said I knew this but confused it with hypnogogic (on the brink of sleep)
> opsimath
I don't know this
> pule
Vaguely familiar but I didn't know it.
> uxoricide
I knew this (killing your wife)
>
> Except the word “braggadocio” that i know well, the others i don't
> have vague memory of.
>
> i am a word buff, but i know there are many serious readers who read
> all novel classics or modern ones daily for most of their lives. These
> people might know all these words. But am not certain, that even just
> half of alt.usage.english regulars would know all these words.
I'd agree - but that's the point isn't it. I knew at least two as
technical words (I'm a biologist by training) and one through Monty
Python!
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Jim Burton
As an long-time reader of your posts Xah, this made me laugh :-)
(Because of the word you recognised, not the ones you didn't.) But I
agree, most of these words must surely be pretty rare. I've always been
a bookworm and knew only 7 in the list.
Jim
> i am a word buff, but i know there are many serious readers who read
> all novel classics or modern ones daily for most of their lives. These
> people might know all these words. But am not certain, that even just
> half of alt.usage.english regulars would know all these words.
>
>> The invitation to submit details at the end suggest
>> this "quiz" is the thin edge of a plan to co-opt people for commercial
>> purposes. I don't like it, and I don't think that this is the place
>> for it.
>
> interesting point of view. Though, am not sure it's justified. Asking
> for age, gender, birth place, ESL, is reasonable and relevant with the
> stated goal of such survey. Perhaps such survey is done to death and
> the result is already well known among the vocabulary communities,
> that this site is just pop rehash for little trivial fun, but the site
> isn't filled with ads, or any at all (yet?)... so am not so quick to
> call them out.
>
>> Myles (although getting 100% gives me a bit of thrill anyway -
>> Uxoricide was the hardest) Paulsen
>
> Xah
--
J Burton
j...@sdf-eu.org
Stephen
Brief, reasonably close definitions ought to be enough to say you "know"
a word ("slut" for "trollop" would suffice), but a true measure of the
extent of anyone's vocabulary is dauntingly hard to measure. The
problems you bring up would apply to almost any test -- there are lots
of words that are vaguely familar but whose meaning can't be recalled,
yet might be well known enough to clearly show the meaning in context,
or a context may trigger better recall.
We all have core vocabulary, then a large pool of completely familiar
words, then a number of less familiar ones that we might be able to use
correctly on a good day, and a large number of vaguely familiar words. I
know the word "funambulist" exists but I have no idea what it means.
Any test will be an estimate, and the results will vary for the same
person taking it on different days.
The only way I had to measure my own vocabulary was to take a few pages
of a concise dictionary, have someone read me the headwords while I
responded with meanings, count the proportion correct, and extrapolate
it to the number of headwords (excluding compounds etc).
It gave me an approximation of about 36,000 words.
Still not very meaningful because I don't know many others who have used
the same method.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Xah Lee
haha.
one word i just learned from that list is opsimath. I think i'll use
that word to describe myself as i've been.
btw, recently i discovered a Google Chrome extension that lets you
double click any word on a web page and it'll popup a balloon showing
its definition. Really convenient. Those interested in vocabulary yet
don't have such a tool yet might give it a shot. For those non-tech-
savvy, you can pickup the details about what Chrome/extension is and
download/install howto at http://xahlee.blogspot.com/2011/07/google-dictionary-and-google-chrome.html
btw, this word test page recently got mention on hackernews (a
computer coder 133t site ). You can read what others say bout this
test there @
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2772387
and lots places on social network i suppose. e.g.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/104013835962992611989/posts/gwkyNNFTBk9#104013835962992611989/posts/gwkyNNFTBk9
Xah
Jeffrey Turner
> I know this (sleepwalker)
Nope. Sleepwalker is somnambulist. A funambulist walks a tightrope (I
had to look that up, though I've seen the word before).
--Jeff
Dr Nick
You're right. How many thousands should I reduce my vocabulary by.
The really weird thing is that I looked up somnambulist, because I got
hits about sleepwalkers (and I just checked, f-a doesn't do that).
abzorba
snip>
> Or what if you recognize the words "trollop" and "slut" and know what
> they mean when you read them, but are not sure how they differ from each
> other? In that case, do you know both words or neither? You would have
> to be extremely strict in that case to say someone doesn't know those
> words just because they're not sure how they differ from each other. If
> the person says they mean approximately the same thing as each other,
> does that indicate that the person knows both words, even with no
> knowledge of what that "approximate" is?
>
Wendy, and Cindy on the left is close enough to being a trollop. They
both love me, and I love them, and that's what makes my world go
round. Zank 'eaven for leeedle girls...
Myles (Que sera and all that) Paulsen
Harrison Hill
You seem to have written the caption without remembering to include
the picture?
Peter Moylan
> a very fun exercise.
>
pointing out that we don't say "very fun" here.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Xah Lee
wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
> > a very fun exercise.
>
> Since you're cross-posting this to alt.usage.english, it's worth
> pointing out that we don't say "very fun" here.
very means like “very much”. Fun means fun. You don't say “vary fun”?
Like, you mean varing degrees of fun or vagaries of fun but you don't
say it? Or, but you write it and speak it?
I know not what it means.
Xah
Stephen
"Fun" is a noun and most English speakers object to it being used as an
adjective, and even more to an adjectival intensifier such "so" or
"very" being attached to it.
Unless you couldn't care less about English usage, as a native speaker
you would write "so much fun." Your example would have to be amended,
too, but it's a little harder to find an alternative that does not
require more words (maybe this is a reason for accepting such
monstrosities, but I still don't like them). I would suggest:
"a very enjoyable exercise"
"an exercise that was lots of fun"
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Xah Lee
thank you Stephen for your kind explanation but inline with
alt.usage.english spirit and kind return to Petere Moylan, i object to
the use of “lots” because it's contrary to the style in my book. [1]
lots has lots of meanings like a meaning lot, the alt.usage.english
lots, almost chosen by lot. Why when we are in the lot where lots
meanings are allotted in lots of ways like lottery, it's a lot of
trouble to decipher, and is not fun, despite lots of right in front.
[1] Lee, Xah. 〈The Writing Style on XahLee.org〉 @
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/bangu/xah_style.html
Xah
Peter Moylan
You can say "very <adjective>", but not "very <noun>".
x
news:t8WdnWCBrtM2RrvT...@westnet.com.au:
> You can say "very <adjective>", but not "very <noun>".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fun
–adjective
4.
Informal . of or pertaining to fun, especially to social fun: a fun thing
to do; really a fun person.
5.
Informal . whimsical; flamboyant: The fashions this year are definitely on
the fun side.
R H Draney
>
>Xah Lee wrote:
>> On Jul 19, 4:59 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>>> a very fun exercise.
>>> Since you're cross-posting this to alt.usage.english, it's worth
>>> pointing out that we don't say "very fun" here.
>>
>> very means like “very much”. Fun means fun. You don't say “vary fun”?
>> Like, you mean varing degrees of fun or vagaries of fun but you don't
>> say it? Or, but you write it and speak it?
>>
>> I know not what it means.
>
>You can say "very <adjective>", but not "very <noun>".
The very idea!...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Look. Are you interested in English usage, or not? If Peter says we
don't say "very fun" then we don't say "very fun".
To be fair, there is is a genuine complication, inasmuch as the natural
adjective from "fun" is "funny", but that means something different, so
we can't use it. As a result, there is a colloquial tendency to use
"fun" as the adjective, as in "we had a fun time", but that wouldn't be
acceptable in formal use. In normal use one says "amusing" or
"enjoyable", either of which can be qualified with "very" if you want.
If you want to stick with "fun" you need to treat it as a noun: "we had
a lot of fun".
--
athel
LFS
> On 2011-07-20 14:37:16 +0200, Xah Lee said:
>
>> On Jul 19, 4:59 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>>> a very fun exercise.
>>>
>>> Since you're cross-posting this to alt.usage.english, it's worth
>>> pointing out that we don't say "very fun" here.
>>
>> very means like “very much”. Fun means fun. You don't say “vary fun”?
>> Like, you mean varing degrees of fun or vagaries of fun but you don't
>> say it? Or, but you write it and speak it?
>
> Look. Are you interested in English usage, or not? If Peter says we
> don't say "very fun" then we don't say "very fun".
But Rightpondians of my acquaintance do say it.
>
> To be fair, there is is a genuine complication, inasmuch as the natural
> adjective from "fun" is "funny", but that means something different, so
> we can't use it. As a result, there is a colloquial tendency to use
> "fun" as the adjective, as in "we had a fun time", but that wouldn't be
> acceptable in formal use. In normal use one says "amusing" or
> "enjoyable", either of which can be qualified with "very" if you want.
> If you want to stick with "fun" you need to treat it as a noun: "we had
> a lot of fun".
>
>
>
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>On 20/07/2011 18:59, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2011-07-20 14:37:16 +0200, Xah Lee said:
>>
>>> On Jul 19, 4:59 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>>>> a very fun exercise.
>>>>
>>>> Since you're cross-posting this to alt.usage.english, it's worth
>>>> pointing out that we don't say "very fun" here.
>>>
>>> very means like “very much”. Fun means fun. You don't say “vary fun”?
>>> Like, you mean varing degrees of fun or vagaries of fun but you don't
>>> say it? Or, but you write it and speak it?
>>
>> Look. Are you interested in English usage, or not? If Peter says we
>> don't say "very fun" then we don't say "very fun".
>
>But Rightpondians of my acquaintance do say it.
Ditto.
This dictionary recognizes that usage:
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/fun_15#fun_19
fun
- definition
adjective [only before noun]
Usage note
enjoyable
Scuba diving is a fun thing to do.
a fun day at the zoo
Usage note: fun
....
Fun is used for talking about something that is enjoyable or someone
that you enjoy being with: Barcelona is a fun city.
* Our day at the beach was really fun.
* My sister is a fun person.
In Xah Lee's phrase "a very fun exercise" "fun" is used as an adjective.
>>
>> To be fair, there is is a genuine complication, inasmuch as the natural
>> adjective from "fun" is "funny", but that means something different, so
>> we can't use it. As a result, there is a colloquial tendency to use
>> "fun" as the adjective, as in "we had a fun time", but that wouldn't be
>> acceptable in formal use. In normal use one says "amusing" or
>> "enjoyable", either of which can be qualified with "very" if you want.
>> If you want to stick with "fun" you need to treat it as a noun: "we had
>> a lot of fun".
>>
>>
>>
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mike Lyle
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>On 20/07/2011 18:59, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2011-07-20 14:37:16 +0200, Xah Lee said:
>>
>>> On Jul 19, 4:59 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>>>> a very fun exercise.
>>>>
>>>> Since you're cross-posting this to alt.usage.english, it's worth
>>>> pointing out that we don't say "very fun" here.
>>>
>>> very means like “very much”. Fun means fun. You don't say “vary fun”?
>>> Like, you mean varing degrees of fun or vagaries of fun but you don't
>>> say it? Or, but you write it and speak it?
>>
>> Look. Are you interested in English usage, or not? If Peter says we
>> don't say "very fun" then we don't say "very fun".
>
>But Rightpondians of my acquaintance do say it.
Yes, but with something so extremely informal, I think Xah needs to be
given a very firm warning that it's unsafe to imitate it.
>>
>> To be fair, there is is a genuine complication, inasmuch as the natural
>> adjective from "fun" is "funny", but that means something different, so
>> we can't use it. As a result, there is a colloquial tendency to use
>> "fun" as the adjective, as in "we had a fun time", but that wouldn't be
>> acceptable in formal use. In normal use one says "amusing" or
>> "enjoyable", either of which can be qualified with "very" if you want.
>> If you want to stick with "fun" you need to treat it as a noun: "we had
>> a lot of fun".
Which reminds me, it's ages since we had a visitation from that poor
Chinese bloke who at intervals understandably loses his temper with
our crazed language, and needs to take it out on a.u.e. I do hope he
hasn't given up in disgust.
--
Mike.
tony cooper
<acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>On 2011-07-20 14:37:16 +0200, Xah Lee said:
>
>> On Jul 19, 4:59 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>>> a very fun exercise.
>>>
>>> Since you're cross-posting this to alt.usage.english, it's worth
>>> pointing out that we don't say "very fun" here.
>>
>> very means like “very much”. Fun means fun. You don't say “vary fun”?
>> Like, you mean varing degrees of fun or vagaries of fun but you don't
>> say it? Or, but you write it and speak it?
>
>Look. Are you interested in English usage, or not? If Peter says we
>don't say "very fun" then we don't say "very fun".
>
Who was that guy that used to post here that insisted "funnest" was
legitimate?
I think I might let "very fun" squeak by if in the sentence "We had a
very fun time."
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Xah Lee
wrote:
> On 2011-07-20 14:37:16 +0200, Xah Lee said:
>
> > On Jul 19, 4:59 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> Xah Lee wrote:
> >>> a very fun exercise.
>
> >> Since you're cross-posting this to alt.usage.english, it's worth
> >> pointing out that we don't say "very fun" here.
>
> > very means like “very much”. Fun means fun. You don't say “vary fun”?
> > Like, you mean varing degrees of fun or vagaries of fun but you don't
> > say it? Or, but you write it and speak it?
>
> Look. Are you interested in English usage, or not? If Peter says we
> don't say "very fun" then we don't say "very fun".
… my writing is razor blades in hot buns to grammarians, chocking
dagger to mouthing moralists, logic bomb to irreflecting morons, eye
opener to epochal theorists, immaculate calculus to logicians,
euphoric oxygen to English masters, orgasmic honey to poetic chicks.
That is to say, when i wanna be on the right occasion, too.
you see, English under me is like a love slave. I say jump and she
jumps, I say kiss and she kisses. And when i need to vent, she bends
double and pleads cum. Of course, it is not to say my theories are
unerring or i'm impeccable or sans foibles and grammatical
trespassings. But all things considered…
it is often the case,
that i do contemplate,
the degree of cockiness,
that i should exhibit myself.
if showing-off too much,
i then beget revulsion.
if i show not enough,
then i'm not man enough.
therefore i trounce,
when being pressed,
on the delicate balance,
that i might have trashed.
now you understand,
'tis not my loftiness,
but my frailties,
that you should endorse.
on the other hand,
with regard to the universe,
my name is Xah Lee,
and i'm still matchless.
Xah
Xah Lee
〈Xah's Belles-lettres Blog〉
http://xahlee.org/lit/blog.html
plain text version follows.
------------------------------------
Wordy English Today: a Better Vocabulary Test Site
A much better vocabulary test site: http://my.vocabularysize.com/
This site gives you a test of 140 words, with a sample sentence and
multiple-choice for answers. (not just words with check-boxes for you
to check.)
The words i did not know are:
fen
lintel
hessian
hutch
aperitif
refectory
beagle
gauche
limpid
cordillera
erythrocyte
They reported that i know 16k word families, and «Your performance on
this test ranks higher than 33% of all native English speakers who
have taken this test without regard to age». However, they say that
the test is really only designed to test a max of 14k word estimates,
and they are currently designing a new test.
Go thru the test and see how you do. Be sure to write down any words
in the test you are not familiar with, so you can lookup later.
Also, install a dictionary tool on your browser so you can easily
lookup words. See: Online English Dictionary Tools.
Xah
Xah Lee
wrote:
> > a very fun exercise.
>
> Since you're cross-posting this to alt.usage.english, it's worth
> pointing out that we don't say "very fun" here.
Now, in the museum of Xah:
〈A Dialog Between Men of Letters: “Lots” of “Fun”!〉
http://xahlee.org/lit/a_dialog_between_men_of_letters.html
Xah
LFS
Xah, meet Myles. A match made in Heaven.
Richard Yates
wrote:
>
>a very fun exercise.
>
>Test your English Vocabulary Size
>http://xahlee.blogspot.com/2011/07/test-your-english-vocabulary-size.html
What I find most interesting about such statistics is the apparent
rate at which children learn words. If, as the results page says, the
average 15 year-old knows 15,300 words that means a rate of
about 3 words learned per day, every day.
Sam Steingold
>
> What I find most interesting about such statistics is the apparent
> rate at which children learn words. If, as the results page says, the
> average 15 year-old knows 15,300 words that means a rate of about 3
> words learned per day, every day.
Actually, most words are learned during the so called "critical period"
(5-10 years), when kids learn up to 10 words/day.
--
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on CentOS release 5.6 (Final) X 11.0.60900031
http://ffii.org http://www.PetitionOnline.com/tap12009/
http://truepeace.org http://palestinefacts.org http://mideasttruth.com
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Xah Lee
By Xah Lee
July 21, 2011
Department of Philology
Bovine University
Abstract
In the human endeavor of composition of written language that is known
as English language in most western world today, there is the
objection of style known as the First Fundamental Objection to the use
of lots in precedence of fun with a preposition of of as to form the
clause lots of fun.
We present here the Second Fundamental Objection to lots of fun on the
grounds of logic, from a application of logic-positivism's
interpretation of Occam's razor.
The First Fundamental Objection is well known in the work A Dialog
Between Men of Letters: “Lots” of “Fun”! [1]. we quote the passage:
«lots has lots of meanings like a meaning lot, the pedantic lot,
almost chosen by lot. When we are in the lot where lots meanings are
allotted in lots of ways like lottery, it's a lot of trouble to
decipher, and is not fun, despite lots of right in front.»
Its objection is based on the principle of reductionism and the
esthetic school of minimalist semantics, as a strategy of reducing the
prime multiplicity of a clausal-morpheme-lexicon's adjectival power in
pragmatics. The effectiveness of such theory was proven according to
the cohort model in neurolinguistics.
This is all very well, however, the recent compilation of modern
webologue corpus showed that First Fundamental Objection has not
stopped the populace in such a usage. Researchers in our field have
been puzzled by this for over the past half century. Until recently,
we discovered that it is because the guild of stylists as a collective
force has failed in molding a viscosity structure of writing. We think
that the First Fundamental Objection suffered the so-called Loniness
Syndrome, and must be coupled with its natural brethren, the Second.
The Second Fundamental Objection is based on counting principles.
Objective Noun can be had in the plurals, e.g. lots of chairs. When
“lots of” is applied to “chairs”, we obtain multitudes of chairs.
Similarly, we can apply “lots of” to “fun”, we obtain “lots of fun”,
but is it a multitude of fun? Here we arrived at a falsidical paradox.
It suggests that fun is countably infinite, like chairs, but as to
water is to salt, we know that water and fun both have cardinality of
the continuum [Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory w/o Axiom of Choice]. “Lots
of” has a equivalence relation to “many”, e.g. lots of chairs = many
chairs, but now the absurdities comes to light when you replace chairs
by fun. “lots of fun =? many fun”. It is on this basis we propose the
Second Fundamental Objection.
For the full paper, please paypal to x...@xahlee.org USD$6.
References.
[1] Lee, Xah. 〈A Dialog Between Men of Letters: “Lots” of “Fun”!〉@
http://xahlee.org/lit/a_dialog_between_men_of_letters.html
[2] Lee, Xah. 〈The Writing Style on XahLee.org〉 @
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/bangu/xah_style.html
Stephen
Thanks, it was great fun having this exchange.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> On 20/07/2011 18:59, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2011-07-20 14:37:16 +0200, Xah Lee said:
>>
>>> On Jul 19, 4:59 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>>>> a very fun exercise.
>>>>
>>>> Since you're cross-posting this to alt.usage.english, it's worth
>>>> pointing out that we don't say "very fun" here.
>>>
>>> very means like “very much”. Fun means fun. You don't say “vary fun”?
>>> Like, you mean varing degrees of fun or vagaries of fun but you don't
>>> say it? Or, but you write it and speak it?
>>
>> Look. Are you interested in English usage, or not? If Peter says we
>> don't say "very fun" then we don't say "very fun".
>
> But Rightpondians of my acquaintance do say it.
Some of mine, too, but they're not the sort of Rightpondians whose
advice on English usage I would recommend to Xah Lee. My "we" was
supposed to include the more sensible people at AUE rather than the
whole universe of native English-speakers.
>>
>> To be fair, there is is a genuine complication, inasmuch as the natural
>> adjective from "fun" is "funny", but that means something different, so
>> we can't use it. As a result, there is a colloquial tendency to use
>> "fun" as the adjective, as in "we had a fun time", but that wouldn't be
>> acceptable in formal use. In normal use one says "amusing" or
>> "enjoyable", either of which can be qualified with "very" if you want.
>> If you want to stick with "fun" you need to treat it as a noun: "we had
>> a lot of fun".
--
athel
abzorba
<SNIP HEAPS AND HEAPS OF IT>
> > on the other hand,
> > with regard to the universe,
> > my name is Xah Lee,
> > and i'm still matchless.
>
> Xah, meet Myles. A match made in Heaven.
>
Laura
The blood roared in my ears…I stood open-mouthed, slack-jawed, and I
was LOST FOR WORDS! Then, on the field of these champions I bowed my
head and my helmet dropped from my nerveless fingers. I walked slowly
to the bleachers. Oh Laura, Laura… let me bury my head in your
scented bosom, and feel a human heart beat for the last time. I am
undone. A new God walks among us, and I am not fit to unzip the Velcro
of his fancyman sneakers. I stain your ample blouse with my tears:
Tell Laura I LUUUURVE her, tell Laura I NEEEEED her…But it is no good.
My own breath now becomes weak. And all I can whisper is: Get the old
hats to crucify this interloper! Hound him out of aue! If I was windy,
he is Hurricane Katrina come round again. If I was self-indulgent, he
makes Nero fiddling look like Mother Theresa. If I was waffly, he is
the primeval miasma that was before all else was. Please everyone:
PLONK HIM!!! PLONK him before it is too late!!! <sob sob choke moan…
> PLONK HIM AND THEN SOME…Do it for the Gipper….
Myles (and so broke abzorba’s heart…when shall another like it beat in
this realm?) Paulsen
Xah Lee
do you know their meanings, allusions, connotations, etymology? For my own good, i produced:
〈A Interloper in alt.usage.english Theater〉
http://xahlee.org/lit/interloper_in_aue_theater.html
Particularly interesting is the etymology of waffle. There doesn't seem to be a sure answer. Also, miasma is a good one to dig up. Nero fiddling to history. And the Gipper for American slang.
plain text version follows. Your thoughts are viands to me. Keep them coming.
------------------------------------------------------
A Interloper in alt.usage.english Theater
Xah Lee, 2011-07-26
At the alt.usage.english theater …
Xah wrote:
…
on the other hand,
with regard to the universe,
my name is Xah Lee,
and i'm still matchless.
Laura wrote:
Xah, meet Myles. A match made in Heaven.
Myles wrote:
Laura
The blood roared in my ears… I stood open-mouthed, slack-jawed, and I was LOST FOR WORDS! Then, on the field of these champions I bowed my head and my helmet dropped from my nerveless fingers. I walked slowly to the bleachers. Oh Laura, Laura… let me bury my head in your scented bosom, and feel a human heart beat for the last time. I am undone. A new God walks among us, and I am not fit to unzip the Velcro of his fancyman sneakers. I stain your ample blouse with my tears: Tell Laura I LUUUURVE her, tell Laura I NEEEEED her… But it is no good. My own breath now becomes weak. And all I can whisper is: Get the old hats to crucify this interloper! Hound him out of aue! If I was windy, he is Hurricane Katrina come round again. If I was self-indulgent, he makes Nero fiddling look like Mother Theresa. If I was waffly, he is the primeval miasma that was before all else was. Please everyone: PLONK HIM!!! PLONK him before it is too late!!! <sob sob choke moan…
│ PLONK HIM AND THEN SOME… Do it for the Gipper….
Myles (and so broke abzorba’s heart…when shall another like it beat in this realm?) Paulsen
• bleachers ⇒ A grandstand (or section within a grandstand) where the seats are usually not provided with backrests. (AHD) Bleacher
• fancyman ⇒ fancy man = A woman's lover, often adulterous. (1811). (AHD)
• old hats ⇒ internet slang: opposite of newbies.
• aue ⇒ alt.usage.english newsgroup (i.e. a online forum for discussing english usage). Usenet newsgroup is a old online technology, before the internet.
• waffly ⇒ from waffle: to speak or write evasively. From the food waffle. Witionary gave 2 etymology of waffle, one might be relevant is: «From the Scots waffle, “to waver, to flutter”, a variation of the Scots waff (“to flutter, to wave”, related to wave), with the suffix -le added. Alternatively, perhaps derived from waff, an imitation of a dog's (unintelligible and thus meaningless) yelp (cf woof). Also note Old English wæflian (“to talk foolishly”).» .
• Nero fiddling ⇒ Nero refers to the Roman Emperor (AD 37 ‒ AD 68). Nero's rule is often associated with tyranny and extravagance. He is known for many executions, including those of his mother and the probable murder by poison of his stepbrother, Britannicus. In 64, most of Rome was destroyed in the Great Fire of Rome, which many Romans believed Nero himself had started in order to clear land for his planned palatial complex, the Domus Aurea. He is also infamously known as the emperor who “fiddled while Rome burned”, although this is now considered an inaccurate rumor. Nero
• Mother Theresa ⇒ Mother Teresa (1910‒1997). For over 45 years she ministered to the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying, while guiding the Missionaries of Charity's expansion, first throughout India and then in other countries. Following her death she was beatified by Pope John Paul II and given the title Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. Mother Teresa
• miasma ⇒ From miasma theory. A old theory that held that diseases such as cholera, chlamydia or the Black Death were caused by a miasma (ancient Greek: “pollution”), a noxious form of “bad air” (with the same meaning like in malaria). miasma
• PLONK ⇒ newsgroup slang. It means to kill-file. i.e. put someone in a blacklist so his postings won't be visible.
• the Gipper ⇒ obscure American slang, from the phrase “win one for the Gipper”. Gipper is George Gipp (1895‒1920), a college football player, who died at age 25 due to throat infection. The phrase is popularized by his coach Knute Rockne, and later made into a film Knute Rockne, All American, starring Ronald Reagan, who used the phrase when seeking election as US president.
The above is from:
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: abzorba 〔myles…@yahoo.com.au〕
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: test your english vocabulary size
Source groups.google.com
Xah
LFS
> ok. There's fancyman, old hats, interloper, Nero fiddling, waffly,
> miasma, and the Gippers.
>
> do you know their meanings, allusions, connotations, etymology? For
> my own good, i produced:
>
> 〈A Interloper in alt.usage.english Theater〉
> http://xahlee.org/lit/interloper_in_aue_theater.html
>
> Particularly interesting is the etymology of waffle. There doesn't
> seem to be a sure answer. Also, miasma is a good one to dig up. Nero
> fiddling to history. And the Gipper for American slang.
>
> plain text version follows. Your thoughts are viands to me. Keep them
> coming.
>
<big snip>
Go, Xah!
R H Draney
>
>Particularly interesting is the etymology of waffle. There doesn't seem to =
>be a sure answer. Also, miasma is a good one to dig up.
My next new car with be a Plymouth Miasma; I'll be trading in my old Toyota
Plethora....
(Blast it, Xah, now you've gone and made me hungry...I suppose I shall have to
go digging for waffles)....r
Frank S
"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:j0n4t...@drn.newsguy.com...
About the ten-yard line of the gridiron would be a good place to begin.
--
Frank ess
JimboCat
>
> one word i just learned from that list is opsimath. I think i'll use
> that word to describe myself as i've been.
I learned that word right here on AUE!
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"It's never too late to learn what "opsimath" means." [James Hogg]
Bertel Lund Hansen
>> one word i just learned from that list is opsimath. I think i'll use
>> that word to describe myself as i've been.
> I learned that word right here on AUE!
I learned it just now. Does it mean that the person did not learn
as a young person, or is one an optimath if one still likes to
learn in the old age?
--
Bertel, Denmark
Mike Lyle
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>On 26/07/2011 18:20, Xah Lee wrote:
>> ok. There's fancyman, old hats, interloper, Nero fiddling, waffly,
>> miasma, and the Gippers.
>>
>> do you know their meanings, allusions, connotations, etymology? For
>> my own good, i produced:
>>
>> ?A Interloper in alt.usage.english Theater?
>> http://xahlee.org/lit/interloper_in_aue_theater.html
>>
>> Particularly interesting is the etymology of waffle. There doesn't
>> seem to be a sure answer. Also, miasma is a good one to dig up. Nero
>> fiddling to history. And the Gipper for American slang.
>>
>> plain text version follows. Your thoughts are viands to me. Keep them
>> coming.
>>
>
><big snip>
>
>Go, Xah!
He never seems to get into converse with H.Hill, does he? "I bet none
of you know you've been talking prose all your lives".
--
Mike.
JimboCat
I've never heard it used outside of AUE, but definitions I find
include both. The essence is late-life learning: what went before, and
why it is happening now (for enjoyment or by necessity) are not
important.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
umop-apisdn
CDB
has "(rare) a person who begins to learn or study only late in life",
so I would say it's one who did not learn as a young person.
>>
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/opsimath?view=uk