Language desk
< September 10	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 11[edit]

How much to know a foreign language[edit]

How many: letters do you have to pronounce, words do you have to know, sentences do you have to build, to claim that you know a foreing language?31.177.96.199 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)--31.177.96.199 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Fluency. Or do you mean golf? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some empirical numbers. Not a loose explanation. --31.177.96.199 (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, it's spelled "foreign". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to answer, or just fool around? Because other people might be willing to help. --31.177.96.199 (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slippery question. It all depends on what you mean by "know" a foreign language. There was also a similar question here not too many weeks ago, which should be in the archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But we could all agree on some limits, every native speaker would know words like 'city', but we could forgive if they don't know 'glutinous'. And it can also be measured what a median speaker knows (some fuzzy line can be draw between the two words above). 31.177.96.199 (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Language proficiency should answer your questions, although things are certainly not as simple as just counting units of language. You may also want to look at the criteria for some of the frameworks mentioned in the article, such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. --Wrongfilter (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some general discussion at Word lists by frequency with useful links. 86.133.58.126 (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Every of a given alphabet. For non-alphabetic systems there exist Kyōiku kanji, Jōyō kanji, Basic Hanja for educational use, List of Commonly Used Characters in Modern Chinese, Table of General Standard Chinese Characters, List of Graphemes of Commonly-Used Chinese Characters. Also one must not be confused by the fact that the biggest CJK character dictionaries (e.g. Zhonghua Zihai) may contain 50,000+ characters. Nobody knows that much (except for the editors of those dictionaries, probably). Most are happy with about 1,000-2,000 (for Japanese and Korean) or 4,000-8,000 (for Chinese). Also note that the early encoding standards such as GB 2312, having had quite a small number of characters, still cover 99% of modern texts.
2a) There are many estimates how many words a native speakers know, ranging from 10,000 to 100,000. One of the best studies I have read is this (the result table).
2b) There are also estimates of vocabularies of some writers [1]. Most range from 15,000 to 20,000 lemmas. Unlike the previous, this means the active vocabulary.
2c) Some language tests may define vocabulary size. Namely, Chinese Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi and Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language give you the exact number of characters and words required to know and provide comprehensive lists of words. For the CERF there are some estimates [2], but one must take them with caution.
2d) Finally, pocket dictionaries, particularly for schools, may give you a good idea how many words to know. Most dictionaries I have had/known are 8,000-15,000, averaging 10,000. This must be quite enough to read the majority of non-specialized texts and understand everyday speech.
3) The more set phrases you know the better. For this there are no estimates. However, you may get some idea from phrase books. For example, a typical phrase book by Lonely Planet has around 200-300 phrases and total 1,000-1,500 words. That gives you a minimum survival "tourist" level. Others may give you more, e.g. Berlitz claims that its phrase books contain 8,000 "everyday phrases" (I personally cannot confirm this).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be common nowadays, but it is perfectly possible to know a foreign language well without knowing anything at all about how to read or write it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing it when you hear it is not the same as "knowing" it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Thing)-less wonder[edit]

Upper-class twits with receding chins are called "chinless wonders". The 1966 England football team were called the "wingless wonders". The Gibson Les Paul Custom guitar was known as the "fretless wonder". A quick google reveals there's a gluten-free baking mix called "Wheatless Wonder", and an anti-ageing product called "Ageless Wonder", as well as people using phrases like "hintless wonder", "bezel-less wonder", "braless wonder", "wheel-less wonder", "gunless wonder" and "gameplan-less wonder". It's a common formula to call something that lacks an important feature to call it a "<feature>less wonder". Does anyone know where and when this formula originated? --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1906 Chicago White Sox were called "the hitless wonders", so this expression type is at least that old. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknack, you've probably already come across this account of the early use of "chinless wonder". My feeling (here's the wild speculation) is that it is the original form which all the others are riffing on, the reason being that it's entirely negative, whereas the others tend to be positive in meaning (non-ironic use of "wonder"). So if "chinless" is the odd one out, that might indicate it came first. Henry ^Flower 15:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for "less wonders" in newspapers.com (a pay site, and not comprehensive) there are obvious straightforward usages, such as "boundless wonders", back to the 1830s. For the usage of the type the OP is talking about, the first one I'm seeing is in the 1880s, where a group of contortionists were called "boneless wonders". And in the 1890s there began to appear reference to horses which could run races without harnesses or jockeys, who were often called "guideless wonders". Ironically enough, the term "hitless wonders" first appears in 1902, in reference to the under-performing Cubs, crosstown rivals of the Sox. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. I've found a reference from Dickens' Dictionary of London (1879) to "Mexican boneless wonders" performing in music hall shows. Anything earlier than that? --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think we've got to the root of all this in the boneless wonder, surely best remembered now for having been invoked by Winston Churchill as an insult for Ramsay MacDonald. He implies he saw one c. 1881. --Antiquary (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gutless wonder, a pejorative term for someone who lacks courage or initiative. Also used in New Zealand (and I think Australia) for a car or other vehicle or power tool or similar which has a lack of performance. Akld guy (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Australia, for at least the past 60 years. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I shall endorse that comment re Australia, and point out that when calling someone a gutless wonder, it is essential to say "Ya gutless wonder". One does not say "You...". HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like when Diane Chambers tried to taunt an opponent by saying "Your mama!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]