Editor for this issue: Elaine Halleck <elaine
linguistlist.org>
Dear Linguists, How densely packed can vocabularies be ? What kind of discussion has there been about 'vocabulary density' in natural and artificial languages ? Density could be depicted crudely as the ratio of recognised lexemes to phonemes in each category or word classed by size. For example, for one-syllable sounds recognised in a language, a subset of these are recognised as 'words' - equally for two-syllable sound-strings, only a subset have established meanings. Presumably the closer the ratio is to 1.0, that is the more completely dense or packed the vocabulary is said to be, then the more ambiguity problems users and translators of the language will encounter. A single phonetic or spelling error will be more likely (in a dense language) to inadvertently create another meaningful word. A lot of redundancy in a vocabulary - that is plenty of dummy words, made up of sound-strings not recognised as words, clustered 'around' each recognised word - may make a language more efficient for communicating. There must be many papers examining these issues, and I am hoping to find them on the web and catch up on where the discussion is at so far. I guess it must be somewhere where linguistics meets information theory ? Mark Griffith, journalist markgriffithMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueyahoo.com This question was placed on the Web-site of "Web Journal of Formal, Computational and Cognitive Linguistics" (FCCL). Please send your opinion to e-mail address: <solovyev
tatincom.ru> too. Valery Solovyev, Editor of the FCCL.