Talk:Swadesh list

message: It should be noted that all linguistic sources are extremely old and outdated. Further no single textbook is even mentioned (what I made up for). This is a bad sign.HJJHolm 11:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: what is the source of this list, and why does it have 207 rather than 200 items? dab (ᛏ) 13:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Swadesh himself started with ca. 500 words (before 1950), referenced a list of 225 (1950), referenced a list of 215 (1951), and gradually shortened it via 207, 200, to finally 100 words. Even these have often been proved to contain a lot of lexemes, wich are not at all resistant to borrowing.HJJHolm 11:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I correct myself: The criterion is primarily "universal availability".HJJHolm (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I see -- the Rosetta project gives you a choice of 100, 200 or 207 word lists. It is our job to find out who introduced which list. A google search gave me no conclusive answers. It is very important to stick to a fixed list. It doesn't do to pick any old list of basic vocabulary: It can be so rigged to show greater or lesser realtionship, depending on what you want to show. I think Swadesh originally proposed 100 items, and it was later expanded to 200 (by whom?),  and the additional 7 items may be an idiosyncracy of Rosetta project. (also, which are the 7 items added?). I'll try to find out, but I'm not sure where I'll find this information. dab (ᛏ) 06:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  the 207-word list is simply the combination of the 100 & 200 word lists. The 200-word list is not the 100-word + 100 more words. The following 7 words appear in the 100-word list but not the 200-word list: breast, fingernail, full, horn, knee, moon, round. peace – ishwar  (speak) 18:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  the 200-word list comes from Swadesh (1952). This list was later divided into two 100-word groups of which the 1st group is preferred and the 2nd group is secondary & to be used if there are items in the 1st group that are difficult or impossible to translate. The revision is proposed in Swadesh (1955). The original list had 215 words. – ishwar  (speak) 19:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is all not the full truth and not at all an answer to the question of dab. Swadesh nowhere used a 207-word list, out of well established and substantiated reasons. Thus, the 207 is an "Ishwar (not a Swadesh) list" and is a misuse of Swadesh's name and intentions. Such personal ad-hoc lists destroy any chance for exact computations. HJJHolm (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

text:  Moreover, ANY list has its shortcomings in one or the other language or culture. For the sake of compatability, and last, not least, to honour Swadesh, the Ishwar-version in wiktionary has urgently to be replaced by the final, original Swadesh 100-word list. HJJHolm (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: source, 207? 200?

message: I find it interesting what the page on glottochronology has to say about Swadesh lists:
The process makes use of the Swadesh list, a list of basic lexical terms compiled by Morris Swadesh. This core vocabulary was designed to encompass concepts common to every human language, eliminating concepts that vary by culture and time.
:: This is correct - contrasting to the repeated entry in the specific lists, " Its only objective is to give a rough idea of the language, by showing its lexical and, when possible, phonetic basis.", which is absolutely erroneous. HJJHolm (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are most likely refering to the Pirahã language.  Actually, the closer they have to numbers is few/fewer/small and another word for more/many/bigger as they have no need for numbers. Also, they don't even have any specific word for colors (they would use something like «of the same color than the sky») nor words for abstract concept like all, soul or cute.  06:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, Swadesh reduced his list from 215 to 100 due to European bias. read: Swadesh (1955) & Hoijer (1956). peace – ishwar  (speak) 19:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: concepts across languages

message: I changed "person" to "man (human being)" because it's all too common to get translations like Latin persona or German Person for this, when what is intended is translations like Latin homo or German Mensch. --Angr/comhrá 07:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This again is a personal ad-hoc change. Moreover, this is completely senseless and ignorant, because the final Swadesh list has "man" AND "person". To maintain worldwide compatability, all have to use the final Swadesh list of 1971. HJJHolm (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Person" 

message: The German equivalent to Swadesh list is not de:Grundwortschatz. The backlinks from there to many other languages are all wrong.
The sense of Grundwortschatz is a vocabulary which contains the 1200 or 2000 most used words of language. Booklets containing such a  Grundwortschatz  are used by language learners. 
Thus I remove the link and the backlinks. Hirzel 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As this wrong link is present in the corresponding pages of the other languages, it's likely that your fix will be removed by a bot in a next future ... So, the links should be fixed in all corresponding pages. Croquant 09:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct. For this reason I canceled the last sentence in the first chapter erroneously referring to the usage as core vocabulary.HJJHolm 11:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German equivalent 

message: I should propose a list here for easy printing reasons - the question was in WP:RD yesterday.
I       	you * 	he    	we    	you * 	they    	this   	that  	here      	there
who     	what  	where 	when  	how   	not     	all    	many  	some      	few
other   	one   	two   	three 	four  	five    	big    	long  	wide      	thick
heavy   	small 	short 	narrow	thin  	woman   	man *  	man * 	child     	wife
husband 	mother	father	animal	fish  	bird    	dog    	louse 	snake     	worm
tree    	forest	stick 	fruit 	seed  	leaf    	root   	bark  	flower    	grass
rope    	skin  	meat  	blood 	bone  	fat (n.)	egg    	horn  	tail      	feather
hair    	head  	ear   	eye   	nose  	mouth   	tooth  	tongue	fingernail	foot
leg     	knee  	hand  	wing  	belly 	guts    	neck   	back  	breast    	heart
liver   	drink 	eat   	bite  	suck  	spit    	vomit  	blow  	breathe   	laugh
see     	hear  	know  	think 	smell 	fear    	sleep  	live  	die       	kill
fight   	hunt  	hit   	cut   	split 	stab    	scratch	dig   	swim      	fly (v.)
walk    	come  	lie   	sit   	stand 	turn    	fall   	give  	hold      	squeeze
rub     	wash  	wipe  	pull  	push  	throw   	tie    	sew   	count     	say
sing    	play  	float 	flow  	freeze	swell   	sun    	moon  	star      	water
rain    	river 	lake  	sea   	salt  	stone   	sand   	dust  	earth     	cloud
fog     	sky   	wind  	snow  	ice   	smoke   	fire   	ashes 	burn      	road
mountain	red   	green 	yellow	white 	black   	night  	day   	year      	warm
cold    	full  	new   	old   	good  	bad     	rotten 	dirty 	straight  	round
sharp   	dull  	smooth	wet   	dry   	correct 	near   	far   	right     	left
at      	in    	with  	and   	if    	because 	name   	      	          	
Notes :
* you (singular)
* you (plural)
* man (adult male)
* man (human being)
What do you think ? -- DLL   .. T 23:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My printable Swadesh 

message: I've created Swadesh list of Slavic languages that has multiple languages for direct comparison. I invite other editors to create and contribute to it and similar pages for Celtic, Germanic, Indo-Iranian, Afro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan, Romance, Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Austronesian, and whatever other language family there's enough information for.  For a base table without any words in it, see this edit. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Swadesh tables

message: I added something about the latest study as that is probably relevant in light of the widespread scientific scepticism. I just realized that it probably belongs in glottochronology rather than here, dagnabbit... and of course it should probably be tuned for a more unbiased tone.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have obviously not read or understood that 2003 or the following articles of G&A, because the title suggests that the early split of Hittite were the outcome of their computations. Only by exact reading we detect that the original outcome is a so-called "unrooted" network, and "rooting" this at Hittite is copied from very questionable sources. HJJHolm (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Addition: Since the header of the article conceals this fact (though admitted in he article itself), it can nearly be regarded close to a lie.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJJHolm (talk • contribs) 10:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles in Nature 

message: The current page states:
    Do not include false friends into genetically similar lists, e.g. German
    "gross" : English "great". The English counterpart in this case should be
    "big", which is the most basic, simple word for something large in size.
As per the "basic" rule, "big" is indeed the better word; however, "gross"
("groß", more accurately) and "great" are not truly false friends, but near
synonymous cognates. Cf. e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=great.
The English version has a slightly wider meaning in modern use ("That's just
great!"), but even the extended use in "He was great king."/"Er war ein großer
König." coincides.)
Depending on the original intentions, which are not entirely clear to me, a
better example should be chosen or the text re-written for clarification.
Notably, the _English_ "gross" is a false friend of the German "groß".
(As an aside: For an analysis that takes the historical development of
languages into account, not just a synchronic analysis, "great" may well be
preferable to "big".)
88.77.143.68 (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion misses the point: The original is Swadesh's 1972-list, naturally in English. The German translation can be found in the corresponding German article. HJJHolm (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  False friends, "great"/"gross" 

message: From the article:
Because of this and false underlying assumptions of rates in language change, the work is generally argued against by practitioners of historical linguistics (cf. e.g. Campbell 1998:177ff), although the criticism has very little concrete basis, apart from verbal argument.
This begins with acknowleding the faults of the theory and the dismisses criticism altogether!
Could someone bring some sense into this?
Cheers 85.220.117.90 (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The logical fallacy of our times? 

message: It is complete nonsense to list here each and every available list, incompatable to each other, without the least knowledge of the mathematical and linguistic implications and mantraps, of which the item "False friends" may give a small insight. It further does not help anyone to create lists without giving any sources AND etymologies.
Out of these reasons at least all lists apart from the last Swadesh list should be cancelled. HJJHolm (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different lists 

message: The Wittmann article on Hittite is cruelly outdated and had to be cancelled. The brandnew dictionary of Kloekhorst will be noted at the Hittite Swadesh list. Further, Gray & Atkinson had to be cancelled, because they used the in parts very poor list of Dyen and maintain not to work on "glottochronology". HJJHolm (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Wasn't having sex in any way essential for ancient people??? 89.178.241.23 (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but they probably didn't spend a lot of time writing about it, and when they did, they probably used euphemisms or circumlocutions, e.g., the bible's "lie with." Friendly Cave (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Core vocabulary. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 18#Core vocabulary until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Veverve (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Core vocabulary" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Please, consider in the 'original' list... Was louse a misprint of 'house' ?
Thank you,
M. Michel￼ 174.240.251.29 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's really 'louse'. It's a bit unexpected, I guess, but it's a remarkably stable and rarely borrowed concept. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Houses, on the other hand, aren't as cross-culturally universal, I think. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error? louse 

message: I just realised that Wikipedia doesn't have an article (nor even redirect) for "basic lexicon" or "basic vocabulary", and never had. What gives? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic lexicon