VI. 



ON THE NUMBEK OF WORDS USED IN SPEAKING 

 AND WRITING. 



By EDWARD S. HOLDEN. 

 (Read January 30, 1875.) 



The question which I have proposed to myself is to determine 

 the size of ray own vocabulary ; that is, to fix approximately the 

 number of words of which I may be supposed to be master. To 

 do this accurately, two things are necessary : first, the collected 

 works of an author, and second, the time necessary to form a 

 complete cpncordance to these. In my own case neither of these 

 prerequisites is fulfi-lled, and indeed, the object of the attempt is 

 not to fix with absolute certainty the number in question, but 

 simply to get an approximate solution, and if possible to deter- 

 mine the limit of error in the result. I approached the subject, 

 as almost every one will do, with the impression that this voca- 

 bulary was very small. The only basis for this opinion that I 

 know of, is a statement of Marsh that an intelligent man will use 

 in speaking and writing less than 10,000 words. My impression 

 was, that this number was too small, and it was to determine how 

 Diuch too small that I undertook the research. 



For my purpose I define a word to be a symbol printed in 

 capital letters in Webster's Dictionary, edition of 1852. 



In turning over the leaves of a dictionary one meets with three 

 classes of words : 1st, those which one is certain truly belong to 

 him and are constantly used in writing and speech ; 2d, those 

 which one might use in writing or very formal conversation, but 

 which it requires a moment's consideration to determine to include 

 or not to include in one's vocabulary ; and 3d, those rare or extra- 

 ordinary words which one unhesitatingly rejects. It is to be noted, 

 however, that technical words are not all in this last class, although 

 a large part of this class is composed of them. For example, the 

 vocabulary of the geologist contains many technical words which 

 I never use in writing or speech, and this is true of other specialists; 

 so that the 3d class of words mentioned above would not include 

 the same words, by any means,for different members of this Society. 



Literary men, however, would probably be nearly unanimous in 

 their selection of this third class. Perhaps, here is the place to 

 savthat we ought to expect that the vocabulary of a literary man 

 of" even the highest class, like Thackeray, would be smaller than 

 that of Huxley, for example. In counting the number of words in 

 the dictionary which are properly to be included as in habitual 

 use, one's natural tendency is to include too many^ of, the 2d 

 class spoken of, that is, too many words whose meanmg is per- 

 fectly well understood, which would be intelligible if met with in 

 reading, and which yet might not be used i a lifetime. 



(16) 



