Re: [tlug] OT. Linguistic ?

[Tapio Peltonen <tappel@example.com>]

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:48:42AM +0000, Mauro Sauco wrote:
> For those who studied Linguistics:
> 
> I've been working on a project to develop a device that could
> possibly help people with speaking disabilities.
> A very simple approach, basically I made an input device that 
> interfaces with an interpreter, a database and a text2speech 
> engine (linux/python).
> I got a working prototype and some candidates desperately waiting 
> to test it, however the input device currently has a limitation of 
> 20,736 permutations (future words) 
> The question is: Are 20,736 words enough for making a "language"?
> maybe I should ask, how many words do we use in the everyday
> conversation? going to a supermarket, talking to friends,etc, nothing 
> too fancy. Can we get a good level of understanding with only 20,736
> words ? (sorry if it's not clear, my English sucks)

It depends on what you mean with "words". 20,000 different _lexemes_ 
is definitely more than enough; I think most of us never use more than
a few thousands of lexemes in our speech. If you mean different word
forms (inflected), I think 20,000 is enough for English (for everyday
use) but might push the limit for Japanese, since in Japanese verbs
inflect to some degree (at least lot more than in English). 20,000 would
definitely be insufficient for Finnish, let alone e.g. West Greenlandic
Eskimo, where inflection and derivation are the primary formational 
devices in sentence-semantics.

Particularly when the vocabulary is limited to certain constant lexicon,
it is a must that all the important inflectional categories are available.

-- 
Tapio Peltonen <tappel@example.com>

This novel is not to be tossed lightly aside, but to be hurled with
great force.
                -- Dorothy Parker