Language desk
< October 16	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 18 >

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

October 17

Rake building

What can the word 'Rake' mean in the following phrase: 'The hotel is located in the late 19th century Rake building?'Thank you Seaweed71 (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it is talking about the Klaus Kurki Hotel in Helsinki, I think "Rake" simply refers to the Rake Group company who has owned that real estate on Bulevardi since the 19th century and gave the building its name. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's just a proper noun. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think it is just the answer95.143.17.191 (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many words?

I'm asking myself how many words a normal man uses in English? And a person's learning English how many words he have to know to become enough fluent? I saw simple english uses 851 words and special english 1500. Is it quite?--Kaspo (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question of how many words you need to know to become passively fluent doesn't really have a definite answer. Also, Basic English was an experiment of the 1930's which has not really stood the test of time... AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Vocabulary claims that the 2000 most common words would cover 96% of everyday informal spoken usage, though that would probably not be sufficient for fluency in some situations. As stated above, there is no fixed number. The more words you know, the more fluent you will become. Dbfirs 08:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday informal spoken English would cover only everyday situations. Conversations about anything specific (politics, business, even the weather) would require a much larger vocabulary. Even in everyday spoken situations, I can imagine conversations in which the 4% of the vocabulary that goes beyond the 2,000 most common words could be crucial to understanding. I think 2,000 words might be enough to get by if you just want to be able to get around an English-speaking city and maybe do some kind of manual work that doesn't require complex communication. I would think that a person should probably know more like 5,000 words to begin to be really fluent in English. Marco polo (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Vocabulary states:

James Flynn reports the remarkable differences in vocabulary exposure of pre-schoolers between different classes in the U.S.A. Apparently, pre-schoolers of professional families are typically exposed to 2,150 different words, pre-schoolers from working class families to 1,250 words, while those from households on welfare just 620.^[1]

and

Several word lists have been developed to provide people with a limited vocabulary either quick language proficiency or an effective means of communication. In 1930, Charles Kay Ogden created Basic English (850 words). Other lists include Simplified English (1000 words) and Special English (1500 words). The General Service List,^[2] 2000 high frequency words compiled by Michael West from a 5,000,000 word corpus, has been used to create a number of adapted reading texts for English language learners.

A useful distinction is between a person's active vocabulary, the words they use in speech and writing, and the (usually much) larger passive vocabulary, those that are understood in listening and reading. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first, the vocabulary difference between classes seemed unbelievable, but then I remembered a friend at university, who was doing a master's degree. In primary school, she had been on the special needs register, and she told the story of being very confused at the age of 8 because the class were told a story about a frog, and asked to draw relevant pictures. She didn't know what a frog was, had no clue, couldn't even guess it was an animal she had never heard the word. Luckily, she was both very smart and at a school that took this stuff seriously, bringing her up to speed, but it really is amazing. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Flynn (2008), p. 102.
^ West (1953)

[1] Flynn (2008), p. 102.

[2] West (1953)

[1]

[2]