Padraig Breathnach

[email protected] wrote:

    >A smoking means a tuxedo all over mainland Europe.

That's one hell of a big tux.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Shelley

My recommendation is that when trying to use the Spanish language,
make sure you are using the regionally appropraite form of Spanish.
For instance, the everyday verb coger in Spain is not so innocent and
is very offensive in Latin America. The word taco can mean the heel of
a shoe in certain places, and in others taco they way North Americans
understand it - and it would be rather embarassing to ask someone for
the heel of a shoe for dinner! Luckily there are Latin American style
Spanish-English dictionaries, and ones that show all the different
meainings of the word worldwide.

[email protected] (me) wrote in message news:<[email protected] om>...
    > BB <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > > On 8 Nov 2004 00:55:29 +0100, Emilia wrote:
    > >
    > > > We spent a wonderful five days in Italy last week. Went to a wedding in
    > > > Assisi then found the most wonderful hotel:
    > > > http://www.castellopetrata.com/
    > > >
    > > > It's out of the way. Tucked up in the hills. Lovely. Gorgeous view.
    > >
    > > Wow, that looks very nice. Unfortunately, I find it hard to learn the
    > > language of every country I want to visit. How lost would I be there with
    > > only the sparsest grasp of Italian?
    >
    > When I first started traveling internationally, I was fairly concerned
    > about my lack of foreign language experience. A self fulfilling trip
    > to Mexico only re-enforced my fears. It was only after meeting my wife
    > and traveling with her to France (she spoke enough to get us around)
    > that my fears melted away. These days I've come full circle and
    > suspect that in any country in which they used the alphabet with which
    > I am familar, I could probably get around on vacation pretty well.
    >
    > English speakers are pretty common near major urban centers. But
    > even out in rural areas where they might be more uncommon, I find
    > an amazing ability to conduct my affairs without ever having to
    > speak. Oh, yeah there are pleasantries that anyone can learn from
    > a phrase book. But I shop and travel with almost no need to speak,
    > nor really understand what is spoken to me. Numbers appear on
    > cash registers so I know what to pay. Direction signage tends to
    > be generic. Menues are probably the toughest, but again with a
    > moderate phrase book or dictionary, it can generally be handled.
    >
    > It is tough when a problem arises, but problems are tough anyway
    > so it is difficult to tell if the lack of language is making
    > it worse, or just feels that way.
    >
    > An interesting experiment is to wander around in your own
    > country and see just how few words you can speak and still get on.
    > It's a bit unfair because of course you understand all the words
    > around you. But I began to notice on my trips how few words
    > locals spoke when they conducted their daily business, and it is
    > true at home too. A tutorial that a traveler might take to "learn"
    > a language for a trip will often tend to teach us to say:
    >
    > "Hello sir, I'd like to order two glasses of beer please".
    >
    > A local usually just says "two beers?"
    >
    > I've conducted all manner of business at home with folks who
    > had accents so thick, I couldn't really understand them. But
    > the business to be conducted is so familar to both that little
    > language actually is need.
    >
    > I spent two weeks in a very small town in Italy where I'm not
    > sure anyone spoke english. We shopped for groceries, traveled around,
    > went to restaurants, all without speaking any functional italian.
    > I'm sure some day I'll run into a situation which is dire due to my
    > lack of language skills, but as of yet....

Me

"Tom Bellhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>.. .
    > "Deep Frayed Morgues" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote
    > in message news:[email protected]...
    > > On 9 Nov 2004 04:39:28 -0800, [email protected] (me) wrote:
    > >
    > > > There is a vast difference between learning a survival phrase or
    > > >two, and knowing enough to "talk with a local or two". (And how
    > > >is it I always consider knowing how to order a beer a "survival
    > > >phrase"?)
    > >
    > > Pointing to the beer tap, and indicating "2" with the other hand aint
    > > rocket science, and is unlikely to confuse! Plus anywhere in Europe
    > > saying beer or pivo is likely to see you through!
    > > ---
    > > DFM
    >
    > Just be a little careful about which two fingers you hold up. Thumb and
    > forefinger means 2 in most places, while two fingers up means something
    > entirely different (and might get you more than a beer!)

My understanding was that if the palm was forward, you'd be okay.
The problem is a "v" sign with the palm facing your own face. The
same is true of the one finger salute in the US.

nitram

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:24:25 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >>A smoking means a tuxedo all over mainland Europe.
    >That's one hell of a big tux.

but cheaper and better than the much coveted Millennium Dome |-)
--
Martin

B Vaughan

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:12:27 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

    >A smoking means a tuxedo all over mainland Europe.

It's amazing how many things I learn in this newsgroup!

So which language first shortened "smoking jacket" to "smoking"?
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

nitram

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:03:45 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:12:27 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
    >>A smoking means a tuxedo all over mainland Europe.
    >It's amazing how many things I learn in this newsgroup!
    >So which language first shortened "smoking jacket" to "smoking"?

I heard Germans using it first.
--
Martin

Miguel Cruz

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Bigben writes:
    >> If you think that most English speakers only have at most a 10,000
    >> word vocabulary (far fewer words than in any dictionary) ...
    > Where did you get this figure?

I think the 10,000 figure is very low, unless Bigben means the daily
operating vocabulary of someone who doesn't do very much.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Julie

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:36:26 -0600, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:

    >Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Bigben writes:
    >>> If you think that most English speakers only have at most a 10,000
    >>> word vocabulary (far fewer words than in any dictionary) ...
    >> Where did you get this figure?
    >I think the 10,000 figure is very low, unless Bigben means the daily
    >operating vocabulary of someone who doesn't do very much.
It doesn't sound too far off to me. I remember reading somewhere that
a person only needs vocabulary with something in the region of 2000
words to read the average broadsheet newspaper. I can't give a cite
for this though as I haven't got a clue where or when I read it. I
know it was something to do with learning a new language and how few
words one needs to be able to get by in a foreign country. It may
have been something I read during my OU latin course, but my course
materials are in storage at the moment so I can't check them.

--

Julie S

Miguel Cruz

Julie <[email protected]> wrote:
    > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Bigben writes:
    >>>> If you think that most English speakers only have at most a 10,000
    >>>> word vocabulary (far fewer words than in any dictionary) ...
    >>> Where did you get this figure?
    >> I think the 10,000 figure is very low, unless Bigben means the daily
    >> operating vocabulary of someone who doesn't do very much.
    > It doesn't sound too far off to me. I remember reading somewhere that
    > a person only needs vocabulary with something in the region of 2000
    > words to read the average broadsheet newspaper.

Again I would be surprised. 2000 words is really not very many at all.

    > I can't give a cite for this though as I haven't got a clue where or when
    > I read it. I know it was something to do with learning a new language and
    > how few words one needs to be able to get by in a foreign country. It may
    > have been something I read during my OU latin course, but my course
    > materials are in storage at the moment so I can't check them.

"The average college-educated English speaker typically has a working
vocabulary of more than 100,000 words."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv...rosci.box.1892

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Markku Grönroos

"Miguel Cruz" <[email protected]> kirjoitti viestissä
news:[email protected]...
    > "The average college-educated English speaker typically has a working
    > vocabulary of more than 100,000 words."
So it reads in the text. Somehow I find the sentence most confusing though.
Is it similarly "typical" when the "average" is around 50,000?

Mxsmanic

Miguel Cruz writes:

    > Again I would be surprised. 2000 words is really not very many at all.

It's more words than were used in all the combined works of Shakespeare.

    > "The average college-educated English speaker typically has a working
    > vocabulary of more than 100,000 words."

I consider that a dramatic overestimate.

Of course, there are different types of vocabulary, so it is useful to
indicate which one is being discussed.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Miguel Cruz

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Miguel Cruz writes:
    >> Again I would be surprised. 2000 words is really not very many at all.
    > It's more words than were used in all the combined works of Shakespeare.

So what? The combined works of Shakespeare don't cover much ground at all.
And the language has grown tremendously since his time.

A newspaper (the context that you snipped) touches on a wide variety of
subject areas, each with its own terminology familiar to laypeople.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

B Vaughan

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:30:50 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Miguel Cruz writes:
    >> Again I would be surprised. 2000 words is really not very many at all.
    >It's more words than were used in all the combined works of Shakespeare.

That's impossible. Shakespeare uses about 3000 words never before
noted in the English language. There are over 7000 words that he used
only once in all his works. I have seen estimates of his total
vocabulary in the 17,000 to 18,000 range, but this counts only root
words.

    >> "The average college-educated English speaker typically has a working
    >> vocabulary of more than 100,000 words."

    >I consider that a dramatic overestimate.

By any estimate, it is certainly an overestimate, maybe by an order or
magnitude.

--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Bigben

"Markku Grönroos" <grö[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>.. .
    > "Miguel Cruz" <[email protected]> kirjoitti viestissä
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "The average college-educated English speaker typically has a working
    > > vocabulary of more than 100,000 words."
    > >
    > So it reads in the text. Somehow I find the sentence most confusing though.
    > Is it similarly "typical" when the "average" is around 50,000?

Most people are not college-educated English speakers and 100,000
words is a very high estimate for total vocabulary. There is a
difference between the vocabulary that people know when they read and
what they use in daily speech.

Here are some figures I'll through out for you. A 3 year old has a
1,500 word working vocabulary , a 5 year old has a 2,500 word working
voocabulary and a typical 18 year old has a 10,000 word working
vocabulary. These are words that they could use in speech although
they do not always use them.

The higher educational level attained by a person gives them a larger
vocabulary to draw from but they still only use a limited lexicon when
it comes to speech. If you elliminate specialized vocabularies used
for professions, then the spoken vocabulary becomes even more limited.

You then look at repetitious words like "the" which accounts for 6% of
all words spoken or written and you have an even more limited spoken
vocabulary.

You do not need to know more than a couple of thousand words to carry
on a conversation in any language.

Best regards,

Bennett (Bigben)
Word2Word Language Resources
http://www.word2word.com

nitram

On 12 Nov 2004 07:28:13 -0800, [email protected] (Bigben)
wrote:

    >"Markku Grönroos" <grö[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>.. .
    >> "Miguel Cruz" <[email protected]> kirjoitti viestissä
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> >
    >> > "The average college-educated English speaker typically has a working
    >> > vocabulary of more than 100,000 words."
    >> >
    >> So it reads in the text. Somehow I find the sentence most confusing though.
    >> Is it similarly "typical" when the "average" is around 50,000?
    >Most people are not college-educated English speakers and 100,000
    >words is a very high estimate for total vocabulary. There is a
    >difference between the vocabulary that people know when they read and
    >what they use in daily speech.
    >Here are some figures I'll through out for you. A 3 year old has a
    >1,500 word working vocabulary , a 5 year old has a 2,500 word working
    >voocabulary and a typical 18 year old has a 10,000 word working
    >vocabulary. These are words that they could use in speech although
    >they do not always use them.
    >The higher educational level attained by a person gives them a larger
    >vocabulary to draw from but they still only use a limited lexicon when
    >it comes to speech. If you elliminate specialized vocabularies used
    >for professions, then the spoken vocabulary becomes even more limited.
    >You then look at repetitious words like "the" which accounts for 6% of
    >all words spoken or written and you have an even more limited spoken
    >vocabulary.
    >You do not need to know more than a couple of thousand words to carry
    >on a conversation in any language.

I read somewhere that people subtitling TV and films use less than a
1000 words, mainly short words.
--
Martin