# How many words for ? in your language



## badgrammar

> Inuk have 32 words for _snow_...
> Don't you think it's fantastic?



I just hijacked this quote from the thread on gender in languages, I hope the poster will forgive me.

I think it is interesting to note that according to the environment of a linguistic group, different languages have a multitude of words to describe things that other languages have only one or two words for.

On the other hand, I have heard of languages with only few words for things that in most languages a number of words exist - for example, I remember reading about a language where they have only one or two words to refer to any and all colors; they do not describe things as green or light green, red or blue.  

Do sea-faring countries have a bevy of words to describe the state of the waters they navigate?  Do people in the rain-forest have 32 names for rain?    
Has this thread already been done?


----------



## danielfranco

The proponents of English always like to point out that English has the most extensive vocabulary of any modern language, with double and sometimes triple or more terms for a single concept.
What they don't always say as earnestly is that about three-quarters of that extensive vocabulary have been introduced from other languages by way of speciality jargons, so that a great chunk of said vocabulary is derived from Greek and Latin...
I like to fantasize that English was a language that developed from sea-faring, daring, enterprising (and warlike) peoples who prized directness over circumlocution, and needed a succint mind-set to deal with the ever-changing conditions of the maritime lifestyle: What worked, worked. What didn't work got cut out and left behind. And if what did work they didn't have, they'd get.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

What I would like to see is a list. How do we know this is true?

Check out this link.


----------



## Outsider

badgrammar said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I have heard of languages with only few words for things that in most languages a number of words exist - for example, I remember reading about a language where they have only one or two words to refer to any and all colors; they do not describe things as green or light green, red or blue.


Slavic languages distinguish between two types of blue. See this thread.

However, the often quoted claim that Eskimo languages have 100 or so different words for snow is false:



> I've forgotten a lot, but there is one thing I haven't forgotten: _There is only one good word for snow in Inuktitut._ It is "aput" in its canonical form - or at least it is in semi-standard Eastern Arctic Canadian Inuktitut. If you live in Greenland or anywhere west of Coppermine, your mileage may vary.





			
				danielfranco said:
			
		

> The proponents of English always like to point out that English has the most extensive vocabulary of any modern language, with double and sometimes triple or more terms for a single concept.
> What they don't always say as earnestly is that about three-quarters of that extensive vocabulary have been introduced from other languages by way of speciality jargons, so that a great chunk of said vocabulary is derived from Greek and Latin...


Another thing I bet they don't say is that most of all that extensive new vocabulary is quickly _translated_ into all other languages, as soon as they find it necessary. There's a reason why English leads the way, but it's economical, not linguistic.


----------



## diegodbs

Perhaps it is true that Inuits have so many different words for snow. I'll have to rely on those who claim that.
At least in Spanish there are more than 30 words to describe different types of bulls. I can only use 2 or 3 of those words, since the full list of words is only known by few people, mainly by those who have something to do with bullfighting or bull breeding in "dehesas".

Bulls


----------



## Residente Calle 13

diegodbs said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is true that Inuits have so many different words for snow. I'll have to rely on those who claim that.



Why? Why take their word for it. I looked at that list and it's contrived. Take a look at this list :

*tla*pa
*tla*pat
*tla*lam
*tla*yinq 
*tla*pi
*tla*-na-na
*tla*pripta 
*tla* 

These are obviously *the same word* with different declesions.
And just because there is a space between "powder snow" and 
none between "tlapa" does not mean they have one word for what
we have two words. That's just a writing convention. If the 
Inuits decided to write "*tla pa*" then the issue would be more
transparent.

Does wet snow count as another word for snow? Does dry snow?


And these are the ones that are obvious. I could break down 
this list in a few minutes to about as many words we have 
for snow in English.

It's a hoax.


----------



## badgrammar

Excellent disclaimers about the Eskimo words-for-snow legend, thanks to one and all.  Diegodbs, that is an excellent example of how some languages have specific specialized terms that do not necessarily exist in all other languages, exaclty what I had in mind...


----------



## diegodbs

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Why? Why take their word for it. I looked at that list and it's contrived. Take a look at this list :
> 
> *tla*pa
> *tla*pat
> *tla*lam
> *tla*yinq
> *tla*pi
> *tla*-na-na
> *tla*pripta
> *tla*
> 
> These are obviously *the same word* with different declesions.
> And just because there is a space between "powder snow" and
> none between "tlapa" does not mean they have one word for what
> we have two words. That's just a writing convention. If the
> Inuits decided to write "*tla pa*" then the issue would be more
> transparent.
> 
> Does wet snow count as another word for snow? Does dry snow?
> 
> 
> And these are the ones that are obvious. I could break down
> this list in a few minutes to about as many words we have
> for snow in English.
> 
> It's a hoax.


 
You're right Residente. It is like: troddensnow, roofsnow, frozensnow, and so on.....


----------



## fenixpollo

My language has at least a dozen words for "to have sex."  Does that mean that the language was developed by nymphomaniacs?

Look at wikipedia's page on Blue.


----------



## moodywop

An English friend of mine pointed out to me with a proud smile on his face that English has far more words for _drunk _than Italian:

drunk
plastered
boozed up
clobbered
legless
pickled
pissed
smashed
soaked
soused
sozzled
stewed
stonkered
tanked up
trashed
wasted

The list is far from complete and it would be interesting if others could add to it.

What I also find amazing is the endless list of variations on _drunk/pissed as a... _


----------



## badgrammar

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> My language has at least a dozen words for "to have sex."  Does that mean that the language was developed by nymphomaniacs?
> 
> Look at wikipedia's page on Blue.



Well, I'm quite sure it was...  what else is new?  But don't ALL languages have  ATLEAST a dozen words for "to have sex"?


----------



## lazarus1907

moodywop said:
			
		

> An English friend of mine pointed out to me with a proud smile on his face that English has far more words for _drunk _than Italian:


I woder if it has more than Spanish  

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=105067&highlight=borracho

The list below are the words and expressions that you can find *in the dictionary (69 words)*, and it doesn't  even include many known slangs, and very few ones used in South American countries (see link above). It shouldn't be difficult to double this list.

aborrachado
achispado
acocullado
ahumado
ajumado
alegre
alegrillo
alumbrado
artillero
azumbrado
bebdo
bébedo
bebedor
bebido
beodo
beudo
bolinga
bolo
borracho
borrachín
briago
buzaque
calamocano
caneco
cargado
catavinos
chamicado
chispo
chungo
ciego
cohete
colocado
contento
copetón
como una cuba
hecho un cuero
curda
curdela
descompuesto
doblado
ebrio
ebrioso
embriagado
empapado
entonado
epoto
globo
grifo
entre dos luces
mamado
mareado
palo
pedo
pellejo
a medios pelos
peneque
picado
pinto
entre Pinto y Valdemoro
piripi
potista
rascado
sahumado
templado
temulento
tiznado
vinolento
zarazo


----------



## fenixpollo

badgrammar said:
			
		

> But don't ALL languages have ATLEAST a dozen words for "to have sex"?


That was my point. 





			
				badgrammar said:
			
		

> Do sea-faring countries have a bevy of words to describe the state of the waters they navigate? Do people in the rain-forest have 32 names for rain?


 I was faceitously pointing out that just because there are lots of ways to say "copulation" doesn't mean that the culture is dominated by sex workers. 

Looking at it the other way, it isn't necessarily true that people who get rained on/snowed on a lot have many words for rain/snow. I've also heard the same thing about Saharan languages and all of their words for "wind".  I'm not saying I disbelieve that it's possible, and carlo's list of drinkin' words is intriguing.  Is English-speaking culture more obsessed with drinking than Italian culture, and therefore has more words to describe the act and its aftereffects?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Here is a serious link about _*snow *_in Inuit. The other stuff about _*tla*_, I hope you've guessed, is just a dumb joke.

http://www.socc.ca/inuit.cfm


----------



## Outsider

Since we mentioned blue, I know people who insist on calling orange "yellow". Maybe it's a regional variation. Then again, our words for "orange" are kind of _ad hoc_: _cor de laranja, alaranjado, laranja_ (orange colored). The same happens with pink: _cor de rosa, rosado_ (rose colored). And here's something interesting: _roxo_ (Sp. _rojo_) used to mean "red", but nowadays it means "purple".


----------



## badgrammar

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> That was my point.  I was faceitously pointing out that just because there are lots of ways to say "copulation" doesn't mean that the culture is dominated by sex workers.
> 
> Looking at it the other way, it isn't necessarily true that people who get rained on/snowed on a lot have many words for rain/snow. I've also heard the same thing about Saharan languages and all of their words for "wind".  I'm not saying I disbelieve that it's possible, and carlo's list of drinkin' words is intriguing.  Is English-speaking culture more obsessed with drinking than Italian culture, and therefore has more words to describe the act and its aftereffects?



Well, I see what you mean, but I think in some cases what you see in your environment may affect the language you need to communicate effectively.  If you live in the Sahara, maybe you develop a different vocabulary than if you live in the North Pole.  I think it's a valid assumption, which is why I ask the question.  Probably nomadic Berbers don't have 30 some odd words for getting drunk...  And Inuits probably don't have a lot of words for describing sand formations and dunes (I'd love it if someone can tell us the Berber/Arabic words pertaining to the desert, for if you have ever been there, you realize that you do have to "read" the desert to get around)...  

Just a theory...


----------



## Residente Calle 13

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Just a theory...



It's a good theory. Chileans probably have many words for *potato*. I know Ecuadorians have tons of words for *corn *(maize). In the Dominican Republic, we have *bananas *of all shapes and sizes and names for each variety.

But how different is that from doctors who know a whole bunch of doctor words we don't know, farmers who have words for different kinds of soil that I don't know, and computer technicians who have their own jargon?

I think the trouble starts when we read that Inuit has 150 words for snow and we believe it. What's worse is when we read about a tribe somewhere in the Amazon who don't have a word for *murder*, and we believe it, and then assume there is a tribe somewhere who doesn't murder because they don't have a word for it.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> It's a good theory. Chileans probably have many words for *potato*. I know Ecuadorians have tons of words for *corn *(maize). In the Dominican Republic, we have *bananas *of all shapes and sizes and names for each variety.
> 
> But how different is that from doctors who know a whole bunch of doctor words we don't know, farmers who have words for different kinds of soil that I don't know, and computer technicians who have their own jargon?


Not different at all, I would say. 

By the way, I've read a few times that many languages do not have words for numbers above a certain (small) value. Can anyone here confirm or deny this?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Not different at all, I would say.
> 
> By the way, I've read a few times that many languages do not have words for numbers above a certain (small) value. Can anyone here confirm or deny this?


Caveat Lector!

This wikipedia page is about a language called *Piraha*. There are only about 150-200 That data has *NOT* been really analized by anybody else so he could have just made it all up (I'm not saying he did but there is no way to be sure as of yet).

Piraha

As far as I'm concerned, there is this guy that says that's the case.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> LOL! Delicious anecdote, in there:
> 
> 
> You mean only about 150-200 languages?


Only 150 - 200 speakers.


----------



## deddish

The colour argument- there are a lot of colourblind people in the world. I don't know if perhaps different races have higher tendencies of colour "blindness"- most colour "blind" people can see colours, of course, but can't distinguish certain colours from each other- but if they did that would be a good reason for why there are such difference in tendencies to name certain things. If there aren't, then this is probably mostly irrelevent.

Also, of the six main colours represented in the English language- red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple- three (depending on whether you're going by colours of paint or of light) are primary and the others are only mixes of them. A language would be fully capable of having only the words Red, Blue, and Yellow, and refer to green as blue-yellow, etc. But, why they would choose to list a word for orange and purple but not green, does not make much sense to me.

I've heard of the Piraha before, too. I looked around for awhile and there are several sites that mention their lack of numbers, and most of them were convincing enough for me. Though of course I believed that the Inuit had an absurdly large number of words for snow as well.

English doesn't so much have way more extra words than we can use, as we use words for something they weren't originally intended for. Yes, we do have a lot of things that do have just far too many synonyms- wonderful, fabulous, great, awesome, and many others all mean more or less exactly the same thing- but in that list of words we have for drunk...

drunk- the only real word for it. Though, it is also the verb "drink" in past tense.
plastered- I've never even heard that one, but it's just noting the similarities of being drunk to... something to do with plaster. Maybe if I'd ever been drunk I'd be able to explina better.
boozed up- Full of beer. Doesn't even count, as far as I'm concerned.
clobbered- "Having been hit on the head hard" means "drank too much alcohol"?

Most of the rest follow similar tendencies- they don't actually mean "drunk", expressly.


----------



## moodywop

I think that "clobbered" and "plastered" are BE. "Clobbered" may be dated but "plastered" is definitely in use.


----------



## fenixpollo

moodywop said:
			
		

> I think that "clobbered" and "plastered" are BE. "Clobbered" may be dated but "plastered" is definitely in use.


 Not at all.  Very, very, very common over here as well.


----------



## moodywop

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Not at all. Very, very, very common over here as well.


 
Thank you, signor pollo . Because deddish said he had never heard "plastered" in Canada I wrongly assumed it was BE.


----------



## Outsider

deddish said:
			
		

> The colour argument- there are a lot of colourblind people in the world. I don't know if perhaps different races have higher tendencies of colour "blindness"- most colour "blind" people can see colours, of course, but can't distinguish certain colours from each other- but if they did that would be a good reason for why there are such difference in tendencies to name certain things. If there aren't, then this is probably mostly irrelevent.
> 
> Also, of the six main colours represented in the English language- red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple- three (depending on whether you're going by colours of paint or of light) are primary and the others are only mixes of them. A language would be fully capable of having only the words Red, Blue, and Yellow, and refer to green as blue-yellow, etc. But, why they would choose to list a word for orange and purple but not green, does not make much sense to me.


If you think that the boundaries we draw between colours are arbitrary, perhaps it's not surprising that different cultures would draw them at different points in the spectrum.



> English splits some hues into several distinct colors according to lightness: such as red and pink or orange and brown. To English speakers, these pairs of colors, which are objectively no more different than light green and dark green, are conceived as totally different. A Russian will make the same red-pink and orange-brown distinctions, but will also make a further distinction between _sinij_ and _goluboj_, which English speakers would simply call dark and light blue.
> 
> cultural influences on colour





			
				deddish said:
			
		

> English doesn't so much have way more extra words than we can use, as we use words for something they weren't originally intended for. Yes, we do have a lot of things that do have just far too many synonyms- wonderful, fabulous, great, awesome, and many others all mean more or less exactly the same thing- but in that list of words we have for drunk...
> 
> drunk- the only real word for it. Though, it is also the verb "drink" in past tense.
> plastered- I've never even heard that one, but it's just noting the similarities of being drunk to... something to do with plaster. Maybe if I'd ever been drunk I'd be able to explina better.
> boozed up- Full of beer. Doesn't even count, as far as I'm concerned.
> clobbered- "Having been hit on the head hard" means "drank too much alcohol"?
> 
> Most of the rest follow similar tendencies- they don't actually mean "drunk", expressly.


That raises an interesting issue. If we count metaphors as synonyms, we can increase the number of synonyms to any given word almost to infinity.


----------



## ElaineG

moodywop said:
			
		

> Thank you, signor pollo . Because deddish said he had never heard "plastered" in Canada I wrongly assumed it was BE.


 
English does seem to have a remarkable number of ways to say drunk (I didn't see one of the most common expressions (f*cked up) on your list or the rarer blotto), and also for penis.  The latter I suspect is true in all languages, as of the handful of Yiddish words that have survived unto my generation of my family, a good half-dozen have to do with the male sexual organ.


----------



## lazarus1907

I've read interesting studies about colour. British, in particular, had the idea that colour perception was relative. But someone (don't ask me now) made thorough colour studies about colour among different people from different races... just to realize that there were no significant differences. Our eyes have two kinds of receptors: Those designed for lightness and those designed for colour; the latter ones come in three flavours (red, green, blue). Colour blind people lack, at least, one of these three colours.

Colours can be classified and described in many different ways: additive systems, subtractive systems, RGB system, hue system... The terminology and the maths required to master this is beyond any common mortal in any case. I don’t think it is a good specific-language topic to discuss.

(My 5 cents)


----------



## fenixpollo

Outsider said:
			
		

> If we count metaphors as synonyms, we can increase the number of synonyms to any given word almost to infinity.


 So, in order to count those synonyms for "drunk" as actual "words for drunk", they would each have to literally describe a different quality of drunkenness.  And we wouldn't count synonyms. No?

for example: 

*buzzed* is that pleasant feeling you get when your head hums and your teeth begin to get numb, when you are lightly drunk
*drunk* is when you are drunk; synonyms include half of those words on moodywop's list
the other half of those words describe being "extremely drunk".  But do any of them count as a "word for drunk"?


----------



## Fernando

ElaineG said:
			
		

> English does seem to have a remarkable number of ways to say drunk (I didn't see one of the most common expressions (f*cked up) on your list or the rarer blotto), and also for penis.  The latter I suspect is true in all languages, as of the handful of Yiddish words that have survived unto my generation of my family, a good half-dozen have to do with the male sexual organ.



There are many jokes in Spanish also about the same topic: the high number of ways to say "borracho" (drunk), "pene" (penis) or "cerdo" (pig). Diegodbs has referred to the many ways (from bullfighting) to refer to the toro de lidia (bull race bred for bullfighting).


----------



## lazarus1907

> So, in order to count those synonyms for "drunk" as actual "words for drunk", they would each have to literally describe a different quality of drunkenness. And we wouldn't count synonyms. No?


I posted quite a few about "drunk". Please don't make me define each one of them.


----------



## moodywop

Even after searching in a few Italian dictionaries of synonyms which include slang words I was only able to find the following words for "drunk":

drunk: ubriaco, ebbro (literary, mainly fig.), avvinazzato, ciucco(slang), bevuto(slang), sbronzo

extremely drunk: "ubriaco fradicio"

tipsy: brillo, alticcio


----------



## Residente Calle 13

There is a difference between how many words a language has for _*x*_ and how many words an individual speaker has for _*x*_.

toilet*
restroom*
powder room
shitter
crapper
loo
latrine
bathroom*

I only would use the ones with an asterisk. And just because _*loo *_and _*latrine *_are English words for _*toilet *_that doesn't mean all or even most English speakers even know what they mean. Ditto for the drunk words. I would never say I was _*stewed *_even if I could guess what it mean in context. It's news to me that it means _*drunk*_.

Are we to assume that all Spanish speakers know all the words in the Spanish list or that all English speakers know all the English words in the English list?

I know about 20 words for _*penis *_in Spanish but I would say that maybe two of those would be mean _*penis *_to most Dominicans.


----------



## colombina

badgrammar said:
			
		

> I just hijacked this quote from the thread on gender in languages, I hope the poster will forgive me.
> 
> I think it is interesting to note that according to the environment of a linguistic group, different languages have a multitude of words to describe things that other languages have only one or two words for.
> 
> On the other hand, I have heard of languages with only few words for things that in most languages a number of words exist - for example, I remember reading about a language where they have only one or two words to refer to any and all colors; they do not describe things as green or light green, red or blue.
> 
> Do sea-faring countries have a bevy of words to describe the state of the waters they navigate?  Do people in the rain-forest have 32 names for rain?
> Has this thread already been done?




Hello Everyone,

To answer the original question, yes, there exist many cases of extensive linguistic nuances that embody in-situ knowledge of the environment, such as topical features, species, traditional harvesting, processing and medicinal practices (among other aspects) in indigenous and local languages throughout the world.

I think that this thread started by "Badgrammar" is not only interesting, but very important from several angles. I see the discussion has digressed a bit from the original posting, which seemed to be asking more on words referring to local or environmental areas of knowledge expertise. (I haven't read all of the responses, but I'd like to reply to the original post).

First of all, as with any important subject, when forming opinions it's always good to be well-informed. The values and reasons for preserving languages and linguistic diversity can have critical implications for entire cultures and people's futures, as well as world heritage. So as a contribution to the discussion, I'm providing a few links below on this, for those who might not be familiar with some of the principles and efforts being advanced internationally. Among these is the UNESCO Red Book on Languages in Danger of Disappearing, that includes an informative introduction on the state of the world's languages and reasons for their valuation.

Secondly, the link between language diversity, cultural diversity and local/indigenous knowledge of biodiversity has been very well studied and articulated in documents under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as other international bodies working on language and cultural diversity issues, thanks in large part to the pioneering efforts on the subject by the Terra Lingua Foundation.  Some of this work, in partnership with UNESCO and WWF International, produced two primary reference sources. One is the book "Sharing a World of Difference: The Earth's Linguistic, Cultural and Biological Diversity", and its companion world map showing significant links between areas of biodiversity and linguistic diversity concentration (subsequently classified as conservation "hotspots" to intensify conservation efforts in these regions). The book is presented in a reader-friendly format, that can be used as an education tool as well, and has an excellent introduction describing the values of biocultural and linguistic diversity. Both are available on-line from the Terra Lingua website below.

Finally, I think that in today's world, thanks to advances in political and anthropological theory and practice, we have overcome some old colonial and ethnocentric tendencies to speak as "authorities" on behalf of other peoples' cultures, who are themselves the first authorities. So it would be important here to know the perspectives of the Inuit on the issue of their many words for snow. Regardless of how many words there may actually be in number, the point is to show that they are numerous, indicating the value of their unique and extensive knowledge of the environment in which they live, and one more reason to respect their culture and lifeways, as a case example of so many other indigenous and traditional peoples. 

This language example of the Inuit has been presented in international conferences to signal similar occurences in other languages in other areas, as the person who posted this was asking about. The facts on the actual number of words for snow can always be verified, this is relative.  The point is to focus on the broader meaning of highlighting this phenomenon that in fact does occur in many cultures, which is intended to illustrate the need to value, respect and preserve diversity, rather than to just zero in and gratuitously discredit this one example as a "hoax".  And the loss of language diversity is a reality, with alarming statistics (see UNESCO Red Book: Introduction).

I think it might be helpful to also publish some of this as a separate thread on the issue of language diversity alone, which as linguists and translators, would probably be of interest to many in this forum.

Hope this is helpful and that the links offer some informative reading.  


References:

A search on Google with the words "UNESCO Red Book" brings up several links besides the main source, including titles such as:
-  The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice: Toward a Sustainable World
-  Linguistic Genocide in Education -- Or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights?


UNESCO Red Book (Sector for Culture):
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=9088&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

International Clearinghouse for Endangered Languages 
(link from UNESCO website, Red Book and Clearinghouse hosted by the Department of Asian and Pacific Linguistics at Tokyo University):
http://www.tooyoo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/Redbook/index.html

Terra Lingua Foundation:  
http://www.terralingua.org

Terra Lingua summary of UNESCO Red Book's category definitions of endangered languages:
http://www.terralingua.org/Definitions/DUnescoRedBook.htm 

UNESCO, Terra Lingua and WWF-International joint publication:
"Sharing a World of Difference: The Earth's Linguistic, Cultural and Biological Diversity" and companion map:
http://terralingua.org/RecPublications.htm

UNESCO:
http://www.unesco.org

WWF International:  
http://www.wwf.org (global network)
http://www.panda.org (information on biodiversity, including economic reasons for biodiversity conservation)

UN Convention on Biological Diversity
http://www.biodiv.org (see links to Article 8j and Traditional Knowledge)


----------



## Residente Calle 13

If you told me that in Argentina there were _*x*_ many words for snow I would ask to see a list and analize it to see if it was contrived. I don't think Argentines are any more or less creative than the Inuit. But what I have failed to see is _*a list *_of the famous words for snow (other than my very unfunny link) in Inuit and until then *the theory stinks to high Heaven*. Theories generally are backed up with data. Where are these 32 words and are they really 32 different words?

Call me a doubting Thomas but that's why I dismiss it as a hoax.


----------



## maxiogee

Sent here by a mod's pointer from another thread I feel compelled to comment on a piece from the always informative and highly entertaining QI television panel game.
For those who don't know it, the name comes from *Quite Interesting* and in it they deal with really strange tidbits of knowledge. One of the staples of the show is how try to sucker the team into giving the notoriously wrong, but commonly beleived, answers to questions.
In last nights programme they asked two Inuit related questions. One showed a picture of a woman and asked what one would call her. The 'wrong' answer is Inuit - the correct answer is Eskimo. It turns out that all Inuit are Eskimos but not all Eskimos are Inuits. It is a class of PC-mistaken identity thing.
The other question asked "What do the Eskimos have 30 words for, which English only has four?" There were a few jocose answers but "snow" is the wrong one, and "pronouns of place" (I think Stephen Fry called them 'locative pronouns') is the right answer. We have *this* and its plural *these*, and *that* and its plural *those*. They have single words for that one up there, this one which we cannot see (for things like sounds and smells) and a whole load of others.

Quite Interesting, actually.


----------



## Brioche

In Malay/Indonesian they have three words for rice.
rice when it is growing is _padi_ [thus paddy-fields]
rice when it is husked is _beras_
and rice when it is cooked is _nasi_ [nasi goreng, for example]

I'm also reminded of the joke about the new teacher from the city who was sent to an agricultural area.
On her first day she drew a sheep on the board, and asked her First Graders "What is that?"
They all looked mystified.
The teacher asked again.
Eventually one child put her hand up, and said "Miss, is it a Corriedale?"
[Corriedale is a breed of sheep]


----------



## BlueWolf

In this thread you can see how many words are used in different languages for the verb "to play".

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=238309&highlight=play

Moreover English seems to use the word "glass" for any object made with glass. Glass (the material), glass (where you drink), glass (what you wear in order to improve your vision). For the same words Italian uses _vetro, bicchiere_ and oc_chiali _(but I bet it's not the only language).


----------



## Victoria32

moodywop said:


> An English friend of mine pointed out to me with a proud smile on his face that English has far more words for _drunk _than Italian:
> 
> drunk
> plastered
> boozed up
> clobbered
> legless
> pickled
> pissed
> smashed
> soaked
> soused
> sozzled
> stewed
> stonkered
> tanked up
> trashed
> wasted
> 
> The list is far from complete and it would be interesting if others could add to it.
> 
> What I also find amazing is the endless list of variations on _drunk/pissed as a... _


I can add 'trolleyed', and 'rat-*rsed' Moodywop. Then there's the one my brother and I coined ' 'UTIOIAL', which stands for *U*nder *t*he *i*nfluence *o*f *I*ntoxicating *A*lcoholic *L*iquor'...


----------



## beakman

Hi, everybody!
I do realise that in Russian there are much more verbs in use than in Spanish. In Spanish almost all can be expressed by: poner, meter, hacer. 
In Russian every little shade of meaning(the manner of the action, direction, completeness/ incompleteness/ feelings, etc.) is a new verb with some subtle/ evident difference in the meaning. 
As Spanish has a lot of words denoting bulls, Russian has many which denotes "windy and snowy weather".
Russian also has much more words (in use) to denote shades of violet/ red colours. Here they only say: "morado" for violet and "rojo" if it is some shade of red.
In Russian there are many words denoting face. In Spain I only know 3: cara, facha, jeta.


----------

