A Swede, a Russian, and your resident Aussie walked into a bar. Sounds like the beginning of a joke, I know, but the Swede wasn’t joking and the Russian wasn’t laughing.
Nothing new here, perhaps, until the Swede said:
“Swedish is the world’s richest language, in fact it’s infinite – and it’s all thanks to compounding.
“This is where you plug any old words together to make a new one, like 'dishwasher' in English. We thrive on this in Swedish, and even words invented on the spot are completely legitimate.
“Look at this menu," he said. “'Shrimp sandwich', two separate things and two words, but one word in Swedish –
räksmörgås”.
He opened his bag, and began excitedly pulling things out.
“Nail polish remover – one word:
nagellackborttagningsmedel. “The Half Blood Prince,” he said, waving a Harry Potter book in the air –“Also just one word –
halvblodsprinsen. These are all singular words, and I’m just getting started.”
I was about to tell him that he needn’t pull out anything else, as the bag’s contents were even more dubious than his claims, but he changed tack.
“Every single number from one upwards is just one word. 125 is one word:
etthundratjugifem. 253,125 is one word too:
tvåhundrafemtitretusenetthundratjugifem. Think of all those words for a start!”
“You can’t count those!” I exclaimed, but the pun was lost in the heat of the moment.
“Swedish is the most comprehensive language by far. It is factually unlimited. Case closed."
This is a common argument, I later learnt, that ‘compounding’ languages are often considered the richest due to their potential word count. In this group you can find mostly Germanic based languages, such as Danish and Dutch – but also Turkish, and even many of the Indian languages. But is this really an indication of anything other than spacebar laziness?
I talked to a Swedish Professor at
Uppsala University, Lillemor Aronsson.
“There are those who say that Swedish is a poor language compared with English, for example, if you count the total of individual words. You can see that Swedish-English dictionaries are often thinner than English-Swedish ones,” she said.
“But then you’ve not considered the infinite number of words that aren’t in the dictionary: subway, subwaytrain, subwaytrainproblems [she said these in Swedish]. In theory these can be indefinite lengths, but are 3-4 words long max in practice. And we take in loan words and make them Swedish, for example “surfar, chattar and messar”.
When pushed for a straight up yes or no answer, she admitted that Swedish (and other similarly built languages) has unlimited possibilities, and in those terms is the richest language.
So while my Swedish barroom friend was on the right track, he may have gotten off at the wrong stop. Surely a person needs to be fluent in all the languages of the world before passing judgment. I talked to other people of different nationalities, and tried to find how
they measured language “richness”.
A
Greek masters student told me that he thought Greek was far richer than Swedish and English, in fact, the richest and oldest language in existence. Not only is it the language of Plato and Aristotle, he said, but we have words that are untranslatable – such as '
filotimo' which means a person who is willing to do things in a nice way.
Greek is influential in naming things too, he pointed out, especially in science and medicine, and you can find traces of it everywhere.
Slavic languages often operate on separate alphabets, with Cyrillic or Latin letters depending on the occasion. Japanese utilizes three different ‘scripts’ when written.
Mandarin is spoken by over a billion people and is perhaps the most valuable to learn in today’s economic climate, but does this make the language rich, or the speaker?
So is it alphabets that define richness? Untranslatable words? Or is it the language’s worth in the global market? Is it the most pages in the dictionary?
Back in the bar, the Russian shared his thoughts on the matter.
“It's not about the size of your dict," he said, shortening his own words as usual, "It's about how you use it.
“Think of Russian. Without such a limitless language, how could Tolstoy, Chekov, and Bulgakov have created their world masterpieces? In fact, many Russians sneer upon even Dostoevsky as sub par.
“There’s no limit to creativity and no rules in our expression – it’s a completely different way of thinking.
“If you can translate the beauty and aching sadness of a word like
toska or
poshlost into English or Swedish - words that Vladamir Nabokov himself called untranslatable - then I can accept that Russian is not the richest."
I said nothing, resisting the urge to ask if “Toska” was a brand of vodka. (I checked Google later, it was).
But all this got me thinking. From my own perspective, I knew that English has its advantages – its eagerness to adopt foreign words, its constant evolution, its rich history and famous wordsmiths. But I didn’t say anything.
The fact that our conversation in an Uppsala bar was being held in English was a testament to the accessibility of the language. While it may not be the richest – it certainly must be the most user-friendly on a global level. Just look at the three of us; a Swede, a Russian and your resident Aussie – chattering away in English.
In fact, I was about to comment on this when a Rabbi, a Norwegian and a kangaroo walked up to our table and interrupted my train of thought.
“Are you guys done here, we’ve got a routine coming up,” one of them said.
In English, I should add.
Follow Oliver on Twitter here
Your comments about this article:
The comments below have not been moderated in advance and are not produced by The Local unless clearly stated. Readers are responsible for the content of their own comments. Comments that breach our terms and conditions will be removed.
Being a language enthusiast, this article got me thinking right away. Indeed, what criteria should be applied in passing judgement on languages? Take Esperanto or Ido or even Volapük (horribile dictu) which so easily can create new words using a cornucopia of affixes. Or German with its Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänshut (not unlike Swedish). It has to be admitted, though, that Swedish is superior to German due to its added advantage of being quite a bit more easily to learn. Many thanks for this article!
Perfect languages for writing laws: no chance of misinterpreting or having "creative" interpretations of anything.
My definition of course.
These types of languages however, are famous for being a "nightmare" to learn... That's the downside.
Not only one word can have 4 different meanings, but there can be 4 different words for a single thing. And that inside a single country, for not comparing differences between, let's say, colombian spanish and argentinian spanish. And the grammar is really complex, there are many different tenses and ways to conjugate verbs. All this things make spanish a difficult language, but at the same time give to it an amazing flexibility and richness.
English is often cited as a rich language, partly because of its tendency to incorporate words for new concepts directly from other languages and partly because it often has two words for essentially the same concept which derive from either the Anglo-Saxon/Norse substrate or the Norman French/Latin input after the Norman Conquest. 'Begin' and 'commence' basically mean the same thing but evoke different emotions in the reader because they are generally used in different contexts and registers. English verbs are extremely expressive in tense, habit, whether the action is complete or not, and how emphatic we want to be.
Then there's Russian with its virtually infinite possible combinations of prefixes on verbs to denote the extent to which something is complete, and suffixes on nouns showing diminutives, niceness or nastiness and so on.
Finally, every language has its pet concepts that have particular resonance in that language and seem to attract far more words than seem strictly necessary from outsiders' perspectives. Inuit languages are well known for having many words for snow. On that basis, it would seem that Swedes do more than the usual amount of thinking: where the English just 'think', the Swedes tänkar, tror eller tycker depending on context.
I think the swedes have just tricked themselves to believing that they have such a rich language just because they have managed to use the language compounding function (Lol). Swedish is a derivative language and therefore lacks originality unlike Greek. The example given by the swede in the report is just a lousy one. Consider the 253,125, which is one word in swedish tvåhundrafemtitretusenetthundratjugifem. If decomposed i think it was arrived at so easily. U want to see the richness in a language i invite u to research African languages. I am not a language student but i am convinced that there originality, thickness in dictionary in many African languages,
Haven't You learned that by now?
What I mean is that, if one knows just a few hundred small words in "ancient" greek, he can understand the meaning of most of the 5 million greek words without looking in a dictionary. But even by knowing less than a hundred, one can understand the real meaning behind almost every word that is used in modern greek today. How's that for user-friendliness?
Furthermore, Greek is one of the easiest languages to read. There is only one unique sound for each letter and all letters are pronounced. Given that there are plenty of letters for each sound it is probably one of the hardest to write, but with specific unambiguous rules governing most cases, it's still easier to write than english, french, german and in my opinion swedish.
Grammar? Yes that is a pain... not unlike many other languages though! However, the variety of suffixes makes the language highly unambiguous. The only requirement for a greek phrase is the verb since if it is properly formed it can enclose almost every other "necessary" part of the syntax.
When one word means 5 different things you end up with miscommunication. When 4 different forms of a word give you 4 different meanings, then you have richness. However, greek and spanish syntax is almost identical.
It is my personal opinion that the only reason why Greek got "lost" through the centuries was the Ottoman ruling that tried to extinguish and squash every sign of the Greek culture, plus the "exotic" alphabet might be kind of intimidating! It is a fact that during most of the roman and byzantine times, it was one of the commonly used languages everywhere in Europe.
Disclaimer : native french speaker ;)
for a native French speaker, that is more fluent and more expressive than many native English speakers, especially those from the western suburbs of Sydney.
@ natabee
you could equally have used 'risible', adding to the richness of the English language
At least English has the longest word ever - SMILES. There's a mile between the first and last letters!!
Note quite true. To be very correct, it should be:
"I later learned, that ..." (past tense)
But:
"Haven't you learnt that by now" (past participle).
However if you take Indian languages such as Tamil or Sanskrit which have abundant literature from BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts
PREFIXES FROM THE GREEK
prefix Meaning Examples
en inside endocrine, endosperm, endoplasmic
reticulum, endoskeleton
iso equal isomer, isotonic, isotope
ecto/exo out ectoderm, exoskeleton, exocytosis,
exocrine,
syn with, build synthesis, synapse, symbiosis
pros add prosthetic, prostrate,
pro first protein, protozoa, prophase, prokaryotic
prophecy
ana up anaphase, anabolism, anatomy, anathema
cata down catabolism, catalase, cataclysm, catechism
dia through diaphragm, dialysis, diastema, diameter
meta after metaphase, metamorphosis, metabolism
para side parathyroid, parasympathetic
anti against antibody, antibiotic, anticodon, antipathy
amphi both amphibian, amphoteric,
epi above epithelium, epidermis, epiglottis,
peri around peristalsis, peripheral, pericarp
apo after/late apoplast, apocalypse, apostasis
hypo less hypotonic, hypothalamus, hypothyroidism, hypothesis
hyper more hypertonic, hyperthyroidism, hyperactive
bio life biology, biosynthesis, biochemistry, biodegradable, biomass
cyto cell cytoplasmic, cytology, cytokinesis
eco house ecology, ecosystem, economy
haem blood haemoglobin, haemolytic, haemophilia
photo light photosynthesis, photolysis, photograph
micro small microscope, microtubule, microvilli
auto self autolysis, autosomes, automobile
Sory it's a bit of a mess but the original was tabulated. Yes I know there is one or 2 mistatakes! E.g 'prostrate' probably means in front rather than add!
If so, that would probably put some romance languages way out ahead. Sweden has eliminated most tenses and genders along with many other nuances of written and spoken language. That makes Swedish a very blunt and ham-fisted language that requires the excessive verbiage of compound word proliferation. So many subtleties, like mood that other languages can capture more adequately. English falls behind by this measure as well, but Swedish is even more stripped down.
The correct way is to count only the number of roots; that is, you count 'sub', 'way' and 'train', but not 'subwaytrain'. Counted this way, the Dutch language is one of the worlds richest, being among the languages with the highest number of unique word roots. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_language#Vocabulary
スペースバーをせずに言語
I believe the richness of the language could be measured by its ability to deliver more meanings in less words. Also, number of words and its poetry abilities.
There is a great competition amongst Arabic, English and Spanish (ordered alphabetically and not richness) when it comes to richness.
Perhaps Chinese is a rich language, but it is too difficult to learn and it has no alphabets. Usually a chinese would know around 3000 symbols to be able to read the news paper. However, in other languages you would need 20000 to do the same.
That is a really interesting idea. Probably more interesting than anything I have read on here in a while. Possibly only to me though. I don't know if you realize that what you are referring to is a principle in physics (although not just physics) known as "Algorithmic Information Content"
Sorry but you have just triggered my inner geek :-))
we have 30 different words for first pronouns (I/Jag/Je)
we have 45 different words for second pronouns (you/du/tu,vous)
is it considered rich-language?
I prefer English language, because it's more useful; I can communicate with many people around the world by English, there are many literature in many different field in English, music, films, vast different ideas, and ….. are all in English.
It's why I prefer English; if I could communicate by Swedish language with many people around the world, then I would prefer Swedish!
There is no market for Swedish language, and we live in a market economy world!
I don't care how linguists define "a rich language" and why some people think Swedish is "rich". For me, Swedish just plays the role of a adequate means of communication among its speakers. There's absolutely no arts in it, compared to many other languages.
I love English with all my heart. However, English, too, is not quite as rich and expressive as Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and many other.
I use the word 'lagom' but find bankers do not understand it.......
3 guys cry in their beer when they got made redundant. The bartender asked what happened, 1st guy said. I used to work in a clothing factory where I placed socks into gift packages, I was an expert sock tucker, the best that factory had. 2nd guy sighed, I use to work at a winery that used real cork to seal the bottles, I was in charge of ensuring the corks were properly treated. I was the best cork soaker that firm ever had. I got replaced by a machine that inserted plastic corks. 3rd guy said, yeah automation sucks. I used to work at a beverage sales outlet which sold in bulk. That meant I had to open various cartons and place customer orders in paper sacks with carry handles, I was the best coke sacker that place had. The owner switched over to pre-wrap packs and customers had to tote their own purchases.
Since this is an international forum I won't give the punch line due to the nature of using a pun on a pun. To me this ability to use puns in anglo is sorely lacking in other languages. Yes puns do exist but the joke above loses its zing once it gets translated. I translate from German and Swedish 'cuz I am fluent in both into English and I get extra humor mileage out of them due to built in deficits in Swedish and German.
When it comes to humor EU countries rely on grotesque bodily manipulations, grimaces, gestures, pantomime, to make their point, the so-called humor bite said so quickly whatever the humor point gets lost in all of these non-verbal machinations. Imagine an Italian telling a joke with his hands tied behind his back.
Clearly you don't know French.
As for the richest languages, after English, Greek, Spanish and Thai.
English too is a compounding language, true to its Germanic origin. Take these four words used by the author in this article: spacebar, barroom, masterpiece, wordsmith. English has thousands of such words and is generating more all the time as the culture of the day may require.
In written English the process usually begins by adding a hyphen, as in the author's writing of "user-friendly." This will surely , in due course, cement itself into one word, "userfriendly," The author also uses the expression "straight up," which I have already seen as "straight-up" and expect to see as "straightup" before the world gets much older.
Notice that both these expressions compound nouns with parts of speech other than adjectives or other nouns: the first with an adverb, the second with a preposition. Much of English's enormous vocabulary arises from the chameleon nature of its parts of speech. Verbs and adjectives become nouns, nouns become verbs, prepositions become adjectives, etc. ad infinitum. English speakers make up such expressions on the spot, just as Swedes do with compounds. Let us also admit that, in spoken language, it is impossible (and irrelevant) to determine whether one is saying "subway train problems," "subway-train problems," or "subwaytrainproblems."
When it comes to loan words (loan-words? loanwords?) English is second to none. More than half its vocabulary consists of foreign words grafted onto the native Germanic stock over the space of almost a thousand years.
Does this not therefore vindicate English as the world's richest language? Of course not! Nothing could be more absurd. The world's richest language is, beyond all doubt...
...FRENCH!
Just ask any Frenchman.
CHINESE!!!
just ask any Chinese!
@pietschke liike (#45)
Clearly you don't know French.
Sorry to rain on your parade cognito, but I certainly do. Its impossible to state anything concisely, directly in an active tense, in French, without recourse to roundabout machinations and linguistic gyrations. France is a language obviously designed by eels , for eels. The passive tense dominates and everything is evasively done by or of something, as if that object really doesn't exist, and is just a construct for sake of convenience.
The expression... French ain't a language, its a disease foisted on us by barnyard animals. Why else do the French emulate every barnyard animal they can? Asiatics did the same thing. They listened to chattering sounds of the jungle and emulated them, just like the French used a barnyard, since there are no jungles in France.
Its the case of a froggy straight from Paris reeking of his dried donkey droppings called Gauloise cigarettes and was told to stop smoking. The restaurant owner pointed to a no smoking sign, and the froggy sez, who is Nosmo King?
The French are appalling when it comes to attempting to speak another language. They are tone deaf linguistic dolts. Asiatics don't fare any better, the proliferation of I speek ingrish yet websites attests to that.
Any language becomes "a group of languages" because of this.
If I say "snow" to an inuit, or "grass" to a Masai, I would have to add a number of explanations before it would give any meaning to it. I would be stupid if I said that a Masai has 50 equivalent words for "grass", because I know that they mean different things to him. In that situation, English is poor and his language is rich. And when we say that one Swedish word often has several English translations, maybe we have more to learn about English.
I am old enough to remember when you could almost tell the parents' income by listening to somebody in England. USA is different.
We have an expression when it comes to Art - "In the eyes of the beholder" - where we accept that the receiver can decide how to interpret an object.
Unfortunately enough, it works the same way with a language expression - one of the reason for most conflicts, from domestic arguing to world wars. You know what you are saying, but you don't know what the receiver is hearing.
A rich language in terms of glossary, between compatible communicators, will not need so many of the words to be spoken in each chat. Should the language be poor in terms of glossary, much of it will have to be replaced by body language and explanations.