In the second paragraph of the answer, I think the author meant to write “etymologists,” those who study words and word origins. The writer wrote “entomologists,” or those who study insects.
"Despite being plainly absurd, your factoid has appeared in newspapers, magazines, and even science journals, each typically citing other such appearances as backup. At times it’s been attributed to Gallup polls or even entomologists. "
Given the context of the article, vocabulary, I’m guessing they meant “etymologists.”
No, Cecil said and meant entomologists. Note the word “even” – it wouldn’t be surprising if the factoid were attributed to etymologists, but it IS surprising that it was attributed to insect-ologists.
You’re not alone in thinking that Cecil goofed (Cecil NEVER goofs), so I actually have the source: the entomologist was named Cole Gilbert. He was cited in Harper’s August 2000 (when the factoid was again published), but for a different nearby fact on the luminescence of fireflies. An article in the Oct. 2000 in the Vancouver Sun cites him as the source of the vocabulary figures. So it was a goof on the part of the Vancouver Sun, but an amusing one.
Well, OK Dex, I guess you are in a position to know about the “entomologists” issue, but, to be frank, my faith in the master is somewhat shaken by the title of the column in question. Surely it ought to be:Does the average American student have a smaller vocabulary today than in days gone by?
I stand corrected on the “entomology” issue. I do agree with Njtt that using “smaller vocabulary” rather than “less vocabulary” makes more grammatical sense.
To me, a “vocabulary” refers one item (a collection), so you can’t have “less vocabulary” the way you can have “less furniture.” I think of it as tantamount to saying “less library” instead of “a smaller library.”
Looks like somebody asked this a while back, but it never really got answered. My take is that either could be considered correct.
An article in the Georgia State University newsletter is headlined “Early language intervention gives children with developmental delays more vocabulary.” Google found numerous examples of “less vocabulary” as well, from various academic sources.
Granted, that alone doesn’t make it correct. But one definition of “vocabulary” I found reads “2. the aggregate of words in the use or comprehension of a specified person, class, profession, etc.” I’d read that to mean that the word could possibly be used like “water” or “money” and be modified by “more” or “less”.
ETA: I agree that njtt’s version simply sounds better.
Hmmm, it seems that someone has retroactively changed the thread title in the light of what I said. The actual column retains the offending form, though.
Somehow, “more vocabulary” does not grate on my ear quite as much as “less vocabulary” does. Anyway, I have higher expectations of Cecil than I do of university publicists.
I wonder if the “academic sources” you found are mostly abstracts. Sometimes good English there has to yield priority to very tight wordage constraints.
Bingo. That’s why I didn’t link to any examples – too much irrelevant (to this conversation) text to wade through to get to the phrase in question.
Anyhow, to summarize my point: I like your way (“larger”, “smaller”, etc.) better. It sounds more natural and just feels right, and I’d be inclined to use it myself. But, I also think a case could be made for using “more” and “less” without technically being incorrect.
As far as I’m concerned you could say “less/more vocabularies” (from a mere grammatical point of view), but as that wording sounds ridiculous (a person can’t have more than one of them) I stick to “smaller/larger vocabulary”.
Isn’t the pertinent question one of a “rich” vocabulary rather than smaller/lesser? Teenagers may have just as wide a vocabulary as a generation ago but the words are confined to a narrower range. W’sup? Meh, aks etc.
The Oxford English Dictionary records 500,000 words and recognises there may be a further 1 million specialised words in specialised subjects such as physics, medicine, palaeoanthropology etc. So there are plenty to go around.
