Why are Latin languages so poor in words? Why do Germanic languages

>>3218014
dont germans glue words together?

>>3218014
Are you retarded most of English's vocabulary diversity comes from Latin and many cognates throughout Romance languages exist only English's autistic structure ends up in more unnecessary words having to be created and specific classes of nouns whose forms are the normal use in Romance. Also the non presence of certain words in Romance most of the time is due to lack of familiarity with such uses and is only a matter of choosing to implement them which would also be quite easy.

>>3218046
>autistic screeching about English and Latin
>English is #8 on the list, just a third of the words Icelandic has
your point?

there must be somethng else to look at other than number of words that make languages interesting

>>3218055
Well to be fair French and Italian are above and Danish which is closer to Icelandic is even lower. Danish also happens to have of the largest set of vowel sounds.

File: finnishcases.png (82KB, 1360x837px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1360x837px

>>3218061
Yes, grammar and declination

>>3218014

English has ~ a million words, your list is garbage.

http://www.languagemonitor.com/global-english/no-of-words/
>The English Language passed the Million Word threshold on June 10, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. (GMT). The Millionth Word was the controversial ‘Web 2.0′. Currently there is a new word created every 98 minutes or about 14.7 words per day.

>>3218078
>English has ~ a million words,
English, a Germanic language has 1M words

>>3218085
98% of them are from Latin languages

also Greek

>>3218078
>>3218085
Probably through all the junk usage like lol and lmao which is probably neglected in official counts of other languages and also differences like -ence and -ency and other various often superfluous suffixes.

Why can't you post this on the right board? Are you retarded?

>>3218024
Yup.
But I don't know if such "words" count in these figures.

>>3218014
That list is wrong. I'm pretty sure I've read multiple times that English has over 1 million words.

Was in Iceland a week ago. They glue multiple words together making any combination of 4-5 words into its own set of words.

Germans do this too but this is way worse. The names of places are often real simple, like "flat top snowy mountain," but it'll be one 20 letter word.

>>3218014
>Be Japanese
>Meet foreigners.
>Get their words.

>>3218100
>>3218186
>>3218078

171,476 words in current use in English, 47,156 obsolete words and around 9,500 derivative words included as subentries.

There is one count that puts the English vocabulary at about 1 million words, but that count presumably includes words such as Latin species names, prefixed and suffixed words, scientific terminology, jargon, foreign words of extremely limited English use and technical acronyms.

File: buttsecks.jpg (19KB, 475x475px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 475x475px

>>3218098
>98%

>>3218226
>There is one count that puts the English vocabulary at about 1 million words, but that count presumably includes words

Yes funny how that works. When you're counting how many words a language has, you have to count ALL the words, not just the most used ones.

>>3218329
everything before the word "but" is horseshit, didn't your daddy tell you that?
>but that count presumably includes words such as Latin species names, prefixed and suffixed words, scientific terminology, jargon, foreign words of extremely limited English use and technical acronyms.

>>3218341
I think he's right, you can't do a count of how many words in a language and then arbitrarily discount words, especially for such petty reasons as being latin or greek, might as well remove words like philosophy then.

>>3218014
The notion of what counts as a separate word is completely arbitrary. Is "pancake" a separate word or a compound of "pan" an "cake"? There are countless examples of this.

>>3218341
>presumably

Well I'm glad that's settled. After all you, an obvious mental retard, PRESUMES it to be the case! Who could possibly dispute that?

>>3218078
>A US web monitoring firm has declared the millionth English word to be Web 2.0, a term for the latest generation of web products and services.
Guess why that 10mio words have no scientific backing. Every Linguist will tell you this list is fake.

>>3218367
Well first of all if it has a separate unique meaning then it is a word, so pancake is a new word because its a name of the food, not of a pan and a cake.

Most words are compounds, including compound, if you discount them then there's probably like 30,000 words in English.

In-cluding - Inside - clusion
Dis-count - Dis(negative) - counting
prob-ably - pro(in favour of) ability of something

see

>>3218362
Yes, but his source is a website that is not accepted by any linguists, they just sent out a webcrawler.
More important are dictionaries and thats why consensus is around a quarter million words for English.

>>3218362
By that logic every language that is written down has over a million words. It becomes pointless to compare.

>>3218386
Those are not compounds.
Compounds consist of 2 or more words, that when separated, have unique meanings.
"dis-" and "in-" are not words, they're prefixes
"include" is actually etymologically in- + close. But it was borrowed directly from Latin "inclūdō".

And "probably" is technically related to the pro- prefix but not directly. It's derived from "probable", which is from Latin "probabilis" - likely, credible, which is derived from Latin "probo" - I approve, I test, I probe, I commend, which is derived from Latin "probus" - good, upright, noble. "probus" is ultimately from pro- + a Proto-indo-European word for "to be", which is seen in Latin in the words "superbus", "tribus", and various suffixes.

>>3218014
The Spanish ones only count what the real academia de la lengua española or RAE gives the okay, there are probably five times more words used in a colloquial way in Spain and Latam with the slang and regional variants/dialects.

>>3218993
>used
more likely known, not used.

>>3218014
so germanics glue words together, but why do the Japanese so many words?

>>3218014
>tamil
Aryans BTFO

BTFO
T
F
O

>>3220151
Lots of chinese words, some synonimous with already existing japanese ones

>>3218014
Having more words is not a good thing.