|Re: Lexicography and Language Learning|
Message #5 Posted by Ed Look on 17 Aug 2007, 1:16 a.m.,
in response to message #4 by allen
I was under the impression that one needed more words in one's vocabulary to have the "coverage" of the language that the paper(?)in the link listed.
However, there are functional differences between a real, human language and a computer "language", which really is the use of words from one's language to name operations and conditions strictly for use in defining, broadly, algorithms.
As such, it should require "only so many" "words" to define any set of similar algorithms. Now, should a user need to define more algorithm types, then he needs more or new words.
Therefore, perhaps "most people" may only need to know a small set of RPL commands or functions, but as one needs to apply his 28S, 48S, 48G, 49G, or 50G to more types of problems or uses, then his need for a more comprehensive command of RPL grows, as well.
I mean, the occasional need by a scientist would require less of a knowledge of RPL than perhaps the more extensive need of a technical student to solve homework problems, etc.; but which differs from the more intensive need maybe of the engineer who may have a less wide but deeper set of applications.
Oh... don't let this out to kids in school; they're lazy enough as it is. If word gets out they only need x number of words to master English or Spanish or German 80%, then I suspect they will begin to study only 80% or less as hard as they might've otherwise! ;)