Cowards left out Navajo.
It’s long been suspected that Koreans are really fast with rhythm games and have high APM because of their language getting to the point faster.
As someone who speaks both French and English, I’m surprised to see French as leading “information density” language. Most French terms have been incorporated into English. Language tends to be behind on technology terms. Language doesn’t have any noticeable difference in short syllable common words to English. It also seems to me that French speakers have an easier time in being vague. I have the impression that English is more precise.
In most cases, being vague requires more informational transfer. To be vague but still connected to whatever is the signified, you need to give more information around the idea rather than simply stating the idea. Think about being vague about how you feel versus being blunt about it.
Looking at the two curves, it looks like they are pretty close but French edges out English because of the speed it’s spoken at.
Even when it was fresh in my mind, I was never able to follow French tv because they just go so fast.
Yeah like “qu’est-ce que c’est ?” Which is just “what’s that?” (I speak both too) would never have guessed French had more information encoded, french translations are always longer too (but you don’t always pronounce all ofc).
I think this moreso demonstrates how tedious written french is. “Qu’est-ce que c’est?” is significantly faster to say than “what’s that?”
I’d wager if the chart was on information density per written letter or word french would be way further behind
I always thought that English was an efficient language.
Switch to Rust. I speak Rust btw.
I am pretty skeptical about these results in general. I would like to see the original research paper, but they usually
- write the text to be read in English, then translate them into the target languages.
- recurit test participants from US university campuses.
And then there’s the question of how do you measure the amount of information conveyed in natural languages using bits…
Yeah, the results are mostly likely very skewed.
This conjecture explains the results surprisingly well. If the original was written in French, which then got translated to English, which was then used as the basis of translation for the other languages that would explain the results entirely.
So I did a quick pass through the paper, and I think it’s more or less bullshit. To clarify, I think the general conclusion (different languages have similar information densities) is probably fine. But the specific bits/s numbers for each language are pretty much garbage/meaningless.
First of all, speech rates is measured in number of canonical syllables, which is a) unfair to non-syllabic languages (e.g. (arguably) Japanese), b) favours (in terms of speech rate) languages that omit syllables a lot. (like you won’t say “probably” in full, you would just say something like “prolly”, which still counts as 3 syllables according to this paper).
And the way they calculate bits of information is by counting syllable bigrams, which is just… dumb and ridiculous.
I take your point without complaint, but I still think you’re an alien for saying “prolly”
I mean, probs. It’s right there. Use that if you have to
it’s pro^b - ly
The graph is missing languages such as Portuguese and Arabic.
That was the issue I had with my elementary school spanish teacher. He spoke so fast that you just couldn’t latch onto anything. It just sounded like DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDS aqui. DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDRS agostos.
So if I’m reading this right, French (closely followed by English) tends to convey the most info per unit time?
I think i read a study long ago, about the speed of transmiting information being faster in languagues of great empires. Sounds logical to me and matches English, French, Chinese.
As a french, I’m very surprised by this, as when I see a text in French side-by-side with its English translation, the English version is usually shorter. It may be a difference between speech and text, but it’s still surprising.
I really thought the information density of French was pretty low, compared to English or Breton, for example.
spoiler
as a fr*nch 🤢
Spoiler didnt work ;)
Written French is slow (needs more words )
Spoken French IS faster
Yes but they also utilize smell.
I’d like a visual of how much unnecessary elaboration different languages commonly use to make a point.
Though you can elaborate excessively for fun but how much is common?
And on the other end of the scale text speak is often extremely concise (not me tho ha). Would be cool to see and compare the limits.Yeah but 30% of the information in French are the “uhhh’s” lmao
They solved that by not pronouncing half the language.
English is pictured as such a smooth, almost perfectly normalized bell curve. On one hand it’s such a versatile language that (largely due to colonialism) has undergone so much evolution and mixing with other languages that I can believe that. On the other hand it looks almost too normal. Odd.
On the other hand it looks almost too normal. Odd.
It could indicate bias on the part of the researchers. I haven’t read their methodology, but in my amateur study of languages, some languages have some interesting tricks for communication that don’t translate to English well or efficiently. If English was used as the baseline, then the study ma not incorporate some of the neat things other languages can do as points to measure.
Mandarin has a word particle to communicate “completed action”. This is used instead of conjugating verbs for tenses. Example: in English you might say:
“I went to the shop” 5 syllables
In Mandarin the literal translation back to English would be:
“I go to the shop [completed action]” 5 syllables
For the two measures listed of essentially Information Density and Speech Velocity, this benefit wouldn’t show up, but if you’re measure for something like Encoding and Decoding Burden (I’m making up these terms), then Mandarin could rank higher.
Looking up the article the baseline is French and English I’d say. So it might be biased, but I didn’t read the article and even if I did, I’m a chemical engineer so what do I know of this field.
Could be bias. But, I wonder if it could be because English has borrowed so much from other languages.
It’s also interesting that English and French look so similar in the graphs. Both, have been the de facto international language for a long time.
In Finnish, I can simply ask, “Juoksenneltaisiinko?” whereas in English, I have to say, “Should we run around aimlessly?”
Is that a common question to be asked in Finland?
Depends on how good drugs you’ve got
Traipse?
That’s the full sentence asking if you want to run around aimlessly.
Interesting word, I hadn’t heard of that one before. While not exactly perfect translation, it seems like a similar kind of word nevertheless. Doesn’t exactly seem to refer to running directly though.
I guess that in the case of my example, it’s more of a demonstration of how weirdly Finnish language can work. Juosta = run, juoksennella = run around aimlessly, juoksenneltaisiinko? = should we run around aimlessly?
Yeah but no-one would ever really use a word like that. It’s just the example given in all memes, but a a more realistic one than epäjärjestelmällistyttämättömyydellänsäkäänköhään. I think it would be more probable that in that scenario, a Finn might say something like “pitäiskö juoksennella vähäse?”
But it is a good feature we have, yeah. Imagine trying to learn all those, whereas now they just come more or less naturally. (For that wordmonster, it takes a bit of concentration and I’m still unsure whether I typoed or not but whatever.)
Frolic?
Not the same thing. The complete sentence in English would be “do you want to frolic with me?”, which in Finnish is mashed together in a single word as the example given above. The chaining is something like “frolic-aimlessly-us-youwanna?”, though not by words but by endings.
Turkish seems inefficient. You spend the effort to talk quickly but don’t get the reward of high info transfer speed like Spanish.
The words are very modular and systematic, but you seemingly pay a price for it.
Poor Thai down there at the bottom, speaking slowly and transferring information slowly.
Thai, the PNY USB stick of languages, apparently.
Actually fewer syllables per second is good, means you’re spending less effort speaking. It’s the ratio of information/syllables you want to maximize. Which means German/English/Mandarin/Vietnamese are roughly on par as the most “efficient” languages.
Some languages have fewer vowel sounds while others have an insane number (in Europe that would be Danish).
Thai has a lot, so speakers need to speak more slowly so the listener has time to distinguish words. But it also means that you can have more words per syllable.
It’s not about efficiency per se - it’s data and error correction
Just to add - Thai has a tonal system and distinguishes rising, low, medium, high and falling tones. This requires a bit more time to say so that there is time for the tone to change (or not change).
LMFAO PNY USB that’s poetic
Speaking of “data is beautiful”, IMO a 2D scatter plot would be very useful for visualizing this relationship. This chart does provide the distribution for each language, as opposed to just the average, but at the expense of making correlation (or lack thereof) difficult to see.
Also, the ratio of the largest to the smallest value for syllables per second and for bits per second appears to be fairly similar. I have to eyeball values but it looks like Japanese : Thai is 8.0 : 4.7 for syllables per second (so 1.7) whereas French : Thai is 48 : 34 (so 1.4) for bits per second.
For each language, the distribution of syllable rate looks very much like the distribution of bit rate. I would like to see a chart of bits per syllable. Oh, and I wonder how this affects reading speed and the rate of information transfer via reading. I wonder what happens with different spoken languages that use similar written characters.
