text:
Talk:Magnetometer

ESR and NMR Sections
The electron spin resonance sections of this article has absolutetly nothing to do with magnetometers. The NMR section was also way beyond the scope of this article, and in the context of this article made very little since. The last part of the NMR section had some relevance to magnetometers, and so was merged with the previous section.

It seems though that it's a bit redundant -- so perhaps someone should just remove that passage too.

Anyone interested in ESR and NMR can certainly visit the respective articles.

Please see the section below Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) reference --Magman5 (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mobile phones
Deleted the passage regarding mobile phones as it read like an advertisement for one specific brand and model of cell phone. If anyone cared to write a proper description of cell/mobile phones and magnetometers, that would be great. There are several phones on the market that make use of these, and they came about way before the Motorola Droid as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.116.91 (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Space probe?
Since I reached this article by way of an article on a space probe, it would seem that the description should be amended to say that a magnetometer measures magnetic fields associated with planetary objects. Perhaps a linkage to other articles about space probes would be a good idea too.

== Space-Based Magnetometers and Magnetometer Arrays --

There are many space-based magnetometers for a wide variety of purposes. Earth-based magnetometer arrays are routinely correlated with satellite-based magnetometers to study lithospheric-atmospheric, lithospheric-ionospheric interactions. I was surprised to see that search coil magnetometers were not mentioned. These three-axis magnetometers (see Themis satellite) are extremely sensitive and "broadband" covering the range roughly from 1 millihertz to 1 khz. The ULF sensors collectively are used now for seismo-electromagnetic monitoring of earthquakes. All the magnetospheric research is magnetometer based.

Orbiting and geostationary satellites routinely carry three-axis magnetometers. These can "see" the earth magnetically to track earthquakes, thunderstorms, the ionosphere and human-generated magnetic fields. The first instruments sent to most solar system bodies are magnetometers. The moon, venus, mars and the sun all have magnetic fields which have been measured with magnetometers. InternetFoundation (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Internet Foundation

Metal detector
Isn't a Magnetometer the basis for the airport metal detectors? If so, shouldn't that be included within this article? Vegaswikian 09:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I am no expert in airport securiyu, I beleive they use induction loop systems as they do for the hand-held units beacause magnetomers do not detect non-ferrous material. The fact the coins set of some detectrors is proof that these ones are not magnetometers.

In geophysical parlance, we would lump aiport metal detectors in with EM systems - not magnetometers. That said, magneotmeters can be used in some low frequence EM sensing applications such as SQUIDS in borehole conductivity systems and in magneto tellurics, so there is some overlap.

Detailed discussion may be beyond the scope in the magnetometer section. There is a lot of confusion by the gweneral pulic about magneotmeters and metal detectors. As a manufacturer of magneotmeters for a decade, I can get tired of continuall explaining the dufferences - especially when they think thy have similar privce tags. I have tried to address the difference in simple terms in the section I added Magnetometers vs Metal Detectors. Phil

Magnetogram
If you're reading this article and know about magnetograms, would you be able to expand that article? Rob 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As a geophysicist using magnetometers for over 20 years, with some involvement with obervatories, I have never head of a magnetogram. Sounds like something pseudo medical, 'pianola role' or 'dinousaur' kind of magneotmeter ?

If so, maybe this could go into the history of magneotmeters along with a nice photo. Phil —Preceding undated comment added 07:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Attitude control and magnetometers
The open source apeliotes project uses 3 magnetometers mounted orthogonaly to determine an aircrafts attitude about 2 axis. While this seems obvious they don't seem to have been used to determine 2 angles in this way before. They are normally used to just determine heading, not pitch or roll.

Copyright violation?
Text from this article was found verbatim here: http://en.allexperts.com/e/m/ma/magnetometer.htm I don't know who stole from whom or what the rules are; I'm not an active member of Wikipedia...
 * They copied us - if you scroll all the way down to the small print at the bottom of the page there's a credit. Natalie 03:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one of the many sites that lives by copying wikipedia content and adding advertisements. All perfectly acceptable; ignore them. Dicklyon 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) reference
Proton Precession Magnetometers and Overhauser Magnetometers both utilise NMR effects. I suggest updating the article to reflect this, and tying in with the NMR article, which does not mention the relationship either. GilesW 10:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, but Wiki article on EFNMR is needed, can anyone help please? GilesW 08:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * EFNMR article started and link added. GilesW 22:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - my livihood for the last 10 years has been from NRM magnetometers. NMR is a difficult concept for many people to grasp. I will consider re-writing both sections with permission to use material from manuals by companies like GEM Systems. Geometrics also has some excellent material on proton.Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magman5 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Laboratory magnetometers
This article deals only with survey applications. Magnetometers are also used for laboratory measurements in rock magnetism studies, engineering, etc. I don't know enough about the various lab applications to write about them, but perhaps someone out there can. Tapatio 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

SI Notation
Is there a preference for quoting the proton magnetogyric ratio as: 0.042576 Hz / nT rather than 42.576 Hz / μT, in accordance with SI standards?

Or is this a work-around to avoid the use of the symbol μ? GilesW 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I do not see, how Hz/nT is less SI conform than Hz/μT, but I do agree that the given number looks quite ugly, and therefore might be considered as bad style. Maybe the original author was a Geophysicist, and therefore familiar with typical Geophysical field instruments and their manuals. They tend to almost exclusively use nT instead of μT, since nT is the quantity usually used to display and record the final measurement results. This is due to the fact that nT better reflect the order of magnitude of typical observed anomalies, as well as the measurement's accuracy. However, since the two numbers are equivalent, which one is finally kept in the article should not really matter. Space2Core (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect comment about atomic magnetometers?
Under the Cesium vapor magnetometer section, it says "when removed from an isolated environment, the cesium vapour can never be 'perfectly' calibrated and the system is subject to environmental interference as are all scalar magnetometers," which seems to completely go counter to what I know about magnetometers that use optical pumping in one way or another.

I am more familiar with magnetometers with modulated pump light(I worked on ones based on amplitude-modulated NMOR effect one summer), but as I understand it, atomic magnetometers do not need to be calibrated---it measures the true local magnetic field, measured as the Larmor precession frequency of the atom (which can be calculated, if the gyromagnetic ratio of the particular isotope species is known).

As I understand, this is a completely different case with other magnetometers like fluxgates or SQUIDS that actually measure flux, rather than magnetic field and do need to be calibrated to the magnetic field somehow.

So, which is right---what I thought I knew, or what a section of the article seems to be saying about all atomic (and usually scalar) magnetometers? novakyu (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Three or four paragraphs are replicated - and exact cut and paste text from a GEM Systems PDF
Search the phrase "The Overhauser effect takes advantage". Below the heading "Overhauser magnetometer" you will find about 3 or 4 paragraphs that are word for word identical. ie accidentally repeated. Dave3457 (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason you're seeing redundant text is because someone has cut and paste the text from http://www.gemsys.ca/PDFDocs/GEM_Overhauser_Magnetometers_Short_Overview.pdf in a rather haphazard manner. There is no copyright mentioned in the PDF itself, but it might be a good idea to get a description of the device from somewhere other than a manufacturer's brochure about it. All the Overhauser Magnetometer text appears to come from this one source, without citation or credit.

--Gldm 3/3/2009

Looks extremely close to and. Went back and forth between the copyvio and copypaste tag. Went copypaste for now, but copyvio is probably the correct tag... Jheiv (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of types
A comparison of the measurement ranges and noise would be very useful. For instance, very little is said about Hall sensors, when they are surely the most commonly used in the world (floppy drive motors use them, likely hard drive motors, printers, gear teeth detectors, etc.) Also, what about GMR sensors? Not all magnetometers are esoteric laboratory instruments. Often one just wants to measure the strength of a magnetic field from a magnet or other high-field source. There is no mention of these instruments. 76.215.209.21 (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think a table should be added with the following columns. [Technology],[Typical Noise T/rtHz],[Best Case Noise],[Freq Response], [Cost] 150.101.188.135 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

mobile phones
I believe the list of models that contain magnetometers should be sorted in chronological order (i.e. which was the 1st model which embedded a magnetometer and to my knowledge HTC dream (known as T-mobile G1 in the US) was one of the 1st ones. If anybody knows more info about the order in which these devices appeared please sort the list accordingly. The HTC Dream was release before the iphone 3GS and thus deserves to be mentioned first. One could maybe argue that the list should be sorted by popularity but I believe chronological is more fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubeidono (talk • contribs) 03:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

what cause earth magnitism?
there are large no. of matels in side the earth which are form in the present of the molten state. as the earth rotate on its daily rotation the ions of the molten metals are of +ve and -ve charge and on rotating on ie the generation of the magnetic field takes place. according to orestate that when current is generated the magnetic field is generated.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.127.42 (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Induction Magnetometers?
There is another type of magnetometer, the induction magnetometer, which is essentially a ferrite rod wound with many thousands of turns of magnet wire, which measures changes in the magnetic field by the emf induced in the coil. High impedance op amp circuits (or sometimes a Sutton "negative impedance" amplifier) are employed to detect and amplify the signals.

It is very sensitive and can measure field changes down to pico-Tesla levels.

Such a magnetometer is currently deployed at the HAARP site in Alaska. http://137.229.36.30/cgi-bin/scmag/disp-scmag.cgi http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/magind.html http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/images/diag/imSensor.jpg

Should this kind of instrument be included in this article?

Jdagius (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes they should be included with mention of their strengths and weaknesses and applications.--Magman5 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Spelling, grammer etc clean up in Overhauser and Caesium magnetometer sections
There were several fairly obvious spelling errors and some cases where paragraphs jumped topics. I cleaned these up without changing the intended meaning on the text.

There were a few minor factual errors and a case of the wrong term being used. "cycle rate" would be in readings per sample. "cycle time" would be in seconds per reading. I opted to leave it as a rate. Also the number 3 seconds is only one case for one manufactures product. That same unit can be caused to cycle faster but checking for other cases, I didn't find any faster than 1 reading per second so I rephrased it as that.

Hydrogen precession in geophysical investigation total rubbish
The bit about Hydrogen precession in geophysical investigation appears to have been written based on stuff from the 1970s. It is massively out of date. It is also completely wrong about several points. I don't have time right now to correct it.

I suggest that it just be deleted because it really is talking about the proton magnetometers that are already covered.

Do others agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.42.187 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Airborne Nuclear Precession Magnetometers is way obsolete
There is a big long section about Airborne Nuclear Precession Magnetometers in page. It is stuff from teh past very like the Hydrogen magnetometer stuff that was in there in the past. I am about to go make some fairly massive edits to it to attempt to save what is useful in the section and remove what is incorrect. I hope the person who added the text can take the changes in the spirit they are offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.42.187 (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That looked like someone had copied it straight out of a text book or some advertising material from the 1970s. Somone stuck it back in. It perhaps could belong in some "History of magnetometers" document. It certainly doesn't belong in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.86.214.133 (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaussmeter definition
One user,, made a series of edits that reorganized this article, gutting the lead and pushing the POV that "Gaussmeters measure the magnetic field at a point in space." No sources are provided for this statement. The only authoritative sources I could find say that a gaussmeter is simply a magnetometer calibrated in gauss (see A Dictionary of Physics and Merriam-Webster. The bit about a "point in space" is a red herring, since that's what all magnetometers do. I am going to undo some of the changes. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Organization
This article is badly organized. Someone has chosen to classify many of the magnetometers into scalar and vector. This is just one aspect of their performance. A more natural way of organizing them is by the physical principle that they use. The two sources I have found that discuss magnetometers comprehensively are: Both organize them into the following types:
 * 1) Induction (rotating coil, vibrating coil etc.)
 * 2) Fluxgate
 * 3) Magnetoresistance and magnetoimpedance
 * 4) Hall effect
 * 5) Resonance (proton precession, optically pumped)
 * 6) SQUIDs
 * 7) Magneto-optical
 * 8) Other (magnetostrictive, etc.)

I propose that we do the same. The above types should each occupy a top-level section, with applications in a separate section. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree that the article could be better organized. It makes sense to organize the types of magnetic sensors by their principle of operation and I would support this. But it would also be good to have an introductory section at the top of the article explaining briefly what a magnetometer does and properties common to all the sensor types:
 * What is a magnetometer? - give a definition
 * What is meant by magnetic field strength and direction? - this is where scalar vs vector might be discussed, as well as noting tesla and gauss units, definition of gaussmeter
 * What are the broad classes of uses? - lab vs survey instruments
 * --Mark viking (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Those all sound like good ideas. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good plan. Thanks for all the work you did (and plan to) put into this! —  H HHIPPO  20:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Potassium
The new text looks a bit like it was written by someone selling Potassium magnetometers. I fixed a few minor errors but left it much as it was. It claimed the "highest" on two things. On one it was wrong in that other technologies do better and on the other it was "highest" used in a place where "lowest" was the best value to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.220.95 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our notice. It looked like it was written by someone selling Potassium magnetometers because it was written by someone selling Potassium magnetometers! See below. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.gemsys.ca/pdf/Advantages-of-Potassium-over-Cesium-magnetometers.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Fluxgate Magnetometers
The text for fluxgate magnetometers is a bit confusing. The second and fourth paragraph are both explaining the basic principle of a fluxgate, but are contradicting. The second paragraph states that input (drive) signal is matching output (sense) signal, the other explanation states that the output flux is canceled out, which would be a zero signal. Unfortunately there are no references linked to the explanations, so there is no way to check which one is correct or if both are just different implementations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.180.182 (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I know this is an old comment, but I was thinking about beefing up this section as well. A discussion of the 3 vs 2 vs 1 winding implementation of fluxgate magnetometers as well as better distinction between closed loop and open loop implementations seems worthwhile. I am a "sort-of" expert on these but I want to make sure I am not just writing OR here, so I will try to come up with a proposed section with some good references. Bodypillow (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Inventor of Fluxgate magnetometer
This article states Victor Vacquier as Fluxgate magnetometer's inventor in 1940, whereas the german article states Friedrich Förster in 1937. Regarding the years it seems clear who was the first. But do they know each other, or at least each other's work? -- Pemu (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I found some sources that showed that Aschenbrenner and Goubau invented it in 1936; Förster developed an enhanced design and Vacquier may have been the first to design airborne magnetometers (his exact role is a little unclear). I have modified the text, although I haven't added Förster's contribution yet. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

AC or rapidly-changing DC
Please could someone explain the difference between an "AC field" and a "rapidly changing DC field"? It sounds nonsensical but I don't want to delete it if the problem is my own understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.150.35.105 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that a changing DC field may change in magnitude but maintains a a given polarity or direction. An AC field changes in polarity. This creates a difference in practice. One might average a changing DC signal to get a sense of average magnitude, but an AC field may need something like an RMS measure to estimate magnitude. --Mark viking (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Magnometers portion
Someone has incorrectly published the magnometers function. U is equal to the magnetic moment. H is the magnetization. They are related to the magnet field but they are not the same thing like the article claims. All three are related by the equation B=uH which is textbook material physics equation. Could someone correct the article. TerpeneOtto (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Which section is this error in? RockMagnetist(talk) 22:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magnetometer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070731230302/http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/earths_field_NMR/index.shtml to http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/earths_field_NMR/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magnetometer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.paper.edu.cn/scholar/downpaper/liuqingsheng-6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321024519/http://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/code695/documents/acuna2002.pdf to http://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/code695/documents/acuna2002.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Magnetometer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.if.ufrj.br/~micha/arquivos/Artigos/Advances%20in%20magnetometry_cm7_16_165217.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.ssec.honeywell.com/position-sensors/datasheets/sae.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408045815/http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/cassiniorbiterinstruments/instrumentscassinimag/ to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/cassiniorbiterinstruments/instrumentscassinimag/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110601172707/http://www.geoscience.gov.au/bin/mapserv36?map=%2Fpublic%2Fhttp%2Fwww%2Fgeoportal%2Fgadds%2Fgadds.map&mode=browse to http://www.geoscience.gov.au/bin/mapserv36?map=%2Fpublic%2Fhttp%2Fwww%2Fgeoportal%2Fgadds%2Fgadds.map&mode=browse

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Magnetometer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304080050/http://iugg.org/IAGA/iaga_pages/pdf/IAGA-Guide-Observatories.pdf to http://iugg.org/IAGA/iaga_pages/pdf/IAGA-Guide-Observatories.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022183358/http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/info/Kindex.html to http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/info/Kindex.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Conventional metal detectors

 * "Magnetometers can be used as metal detectors: they can detect only magnetic (ferrous) metals, but can detect such metals at a much larger depth than conventional metal detectors"

Do pray tell, what is a "conventional" metal detector?? DAVilla (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Magnetometer


text:
James Cooke Brown

James Cooke Brown (July 21, 1921 – February 13, 2000) was an American sociologist and science fiction author. He is notable for creating the constructed language Loglan and for designing the Parker Brothers board game Careers.

Brown's novel The Troika Incident (Doubleday, 1970) describes a worldwide free knowledge base similar to the Internet. The novel begins with the belief that the world is on the eve of self-destruction, but then it presents a world about a century from now which is a paradise of peace and prosperity, all based on ideas, movements, and knowledge presently available in the world. In its metafictional structure, the novel is a call for social change, not through revolution but through free education and the resilience of human ingenuity. Long out of print and relatively rare, an e-book version (Amazon Kindle) of the novel was released in 2012. The novel envisioned all books and periodicals being viewed on portable electronic devices called "readers" in the year 2070, when it is set.

Among his other achievements, Brown designed, and had built, a three-hulled sailboat, called a trimaran. He utilized this boat to sail to many parts of the world.

While on a South American cruise with his wife, Brown was admitted to a hospital in Argentina, where he died at the age of 78.

Science fiction

 * "The Emissary", Astounding Science Fiction
 * The Love Machine, Fantastic Universe
 * The Troika Incident: A Tetralogue In Two Parts, Doubleday, 1970

Sociology

 * Cooperative group formation: a problem in social engineering, University of Minnesota, 1951
 * The Job Market of the Future: Using Computers to Humanize Economies, James Cooke Brown, M.E. Sharpe, 2001, ISBN 978-0-7656-0733-1
 * Paternity, Jokes and Song : A Possible Evolutionary Scenario for the Origin of Mind and Language, Brown J. C.; Greenhood W., 1983, vol. 8, no2, pp. 7–53 (5 p.), Journal of Social and Biological Structures, ISSN 0748-772X

Loglan

 * Loglan 1: a logical language, James Cooke Brown, Loglan Institute, 1975
 * Loglan 2: methods of construction, James Cooke Brown, Loglan Institute, University Microfilms, 1981
 * Loglan 3: speaking Loglan : programmed textbook on the phonology, basic vocabulary, and grammar of the simple Loglan sentence, James Cooke Brown, Lujoye Fuller Brown, Loglan Institute, University Microfilms, 1965
 * Loglan 4: a Loglan-English dictionary,	James Cooke Brown, Lujoye Fuller Brown, Loglan Institute, 1970
 * Loglan 5: an English-Loglan dictionary, James Cooke Brown, Lujoye Fuller Brown, Loglan Institute, University Microfilms, 1981
 * Loglan 4 & 5: a Loglan-English/English-Loglan dictionary, James Cooke Brown, Loglan Institute, 1975

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: James Cooke Brown


text:
Vocabulary

A vocabulary (also known as a lexicon) is a set of words, typically the set in a language or the set known to an individual. The word vocabulary originated from the Latin vocabulum, meaning "a word, name". It forms an essential component of language and communication, helping convey thoughts, ideas, emotions, and information. Vocabulary can be oral, written, or signed and can be categorized into two main types: active vocabulary (words one uses regularly) and passive vocabulary (words one recognizes but does not use often). An individual's vocabulary continually evolves through various methods, including direct instruction, independent reading, and natural language exposure, but it can also shrink due to forgetting, trauma, or disease. Furthermore, vocabulary is a significant focus of study across various disciplines, like linguistics, education, psychology, and artificial intelligence. Vocabulary is not limited to single words; it also encompasses multi-word units known as collocations, idioms, and other types of phraseology. Acquiring an adequate vocabulary is one of the largest challenges in learning a second language.

Terminology
A vocabulary is the set of words in a given language that an individual knows and uses. In the context of linguistics, a vocabulary may refer more broadly to any set of words. Types of vocabularies have been further defined: a lexis is a vocabulary comprising all words used in a language or other linguistic context or in a person's lexical repertoire. An individual person's vocabulary includes an passive vocabulary of words they can recognize or understand, as well as an active vocabulary of words they regularly use in speech and writing. In semiotics, vocabulary refers to the complete set of symbols and signs in a sign system or a text, extending the definition beyond purely verbal communication to encompass other forms of symbolic communication.

Vocabulary acquisition is a central aspect of language education, as it directly impacts reading comprehension, expressive and receptive language skills, and academic achievement. Vocabulary is examined in psychology as a measure of language processing and cognitive development. It can serve as an indicator of intellectual ability or cognitive status, with vocabulary tests often forming part of intelligence and neuropsychological assessments.

Definition of "word"
Word has a variety of meanings, and our understand of ideas such as vocabulary size differ depending on the definition used.

The most common definition equates words with lemmas (the inflected or dictionary form; this includes walk, but not walks, walked or walking). Most of the time lemmas do not include proper nouns (names of people, places, companies, etc.). Another definition often used in research of vocabulary size is that of word family. These are all the words that can be derived from a ground word (e.g., the words effortless, effortlessly, effortful, effortfully are all part of the word family effort). Estimates of vocabulary size range from as high as 200 thousand to as low as 10 thousand, depending on the definition used.

Productive and receptive knowledge
The first major change distinction that must be made when evaluating word knowledge is whether the knowledge is productive (also called achieve or active) or receptive (also called receive or passive); even within those opposing categories, there is often no clear distinction. Words that are generally understood when heard or read or seen constitute a person's receptive vocabulary. These words may range from well known to barely known (see degree of knowledge below). A person's receptive vocabulary is usually the larger of the two. For example, although a young child may not yet be able to speak, write, or sign, they may be able to follow simple commands and appear to understand a good portion of the language to which they are exposed. In this case, the child's receptive vocabulary is likely tens, if not hundreds of words, but their active vocabulary is zero. When that child learns to speak or sign, however, the child's active vocabulary begins to increase. It is also possible for the productive vocabulary to be larger than the receptive vocabulary, for example in a second-language learner who has learned words through study rather than exposure, and can produce them, but has difficulty recognizing them in conversation.

Productive vocabulary, therefore, generally refers to words that can be produced within an appropriate context and match the intended meaning of the speaker or signer. As with receptive vocabulary, however, there are many degrees at which a particular word may be considered part of an active vocabulary. Knowing how to pronounce, sign, or write a word does not necessarily mean that the word that has been used correctly or accurately reflects the intended message; but it does reflect a minimal amount of productive knowledge.

Degree of knowledge
Within the receptive–productive distinction lies a range of abilities that are often referred to as degree of knowledge. This simply indicates that a word gradually enters a person's vocabulary over a period of time as more aspects of word knowledge are learnt. Roughly, these stages could be described as:

 * 1) Never encountered the word.
 * 2) Heard the word, but cannot define it.
 * 3) Recognizes the word due to context or tone of voice.
 * 4) Able to use the word and understand the general and/or intended meaning, but cannot clearly explain it.
 * 5) Fluent with the word – its use and definition.

Depth of knowledge
The differing degrees of word knowledge imply a greater depth of knowledge, but the process is more complex than that. There are many facets to knowing a word, some of which are not hierarchical so their acquisition does not necessarily follow a linear progression suggested by degree of knowledge. Several frameworks of word knowledge have been proposed to better operationalise this concept. One such framework includes nine facets:

 * 1) orthography – written form
 * 2) phonology – spoken form
 * 3) reference – concept and reference
 * 4) semantics – meaning
 * 5) register – appropriacy of use or register
 * 6) collocation – lexical neighbours
 * 7) word associations
 * 8) syntax – grammatical function
 * 9) morphology – word parts

Types of vocabulary
Listed in order of most ample to most limited:

Reading vocabulary
A person's reading vocabulary is all the words recognized when reading. This class of vocabulary is generally the most ample, as new words are more commonly encountered when reading than when listening.

Listening vocabulary
A person's listening vocabulary comprises the words recognized when listening to speech. Cues such as the speaker's tone and gestures, the topic of discussion, and the conversation's social context may convey the meaning of an unfamiliar word.

Speaking vocabulary
A person's speaking vocabulary comprises the words used in speech and is generally a subset of the listening vocabulary. Due to the spontaneous nature of speech, words are often misused slightly and unintentionally, but facial expressions and tone of voice can compensate for this misuse.

Writing vocabulary
The written word appears in registers as different as formal essays and social media feeds. While many written words rarely appear in speech, a person's written vocabulary is generally limited by preference and context: a writer may prefer one synonym over another, and they will be unlikely to use technical vocabulary relating to a subject in which they have no interest or knowledge.

Final vocabulary
The American philosopher Richard Rorty characterized a person's "final vocabulary" as follows:

"All human beings carry about a set of words which they employ to justify their actions, their beliefs, and their lives. These are the words in which we formulate praise of our friends and contempt for our enemies, our long-term projects, our deepest self-doubts and our highest hopes... I shall call these words a person's 'final vocabulary'. Those words are as far as he can go with language; beyond them is only helpless passivity or a resort to force. (Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity p. 73)"

Vocabulary growth
During its infancy, a child instinctively builds a vocabulary. Infants imitate words that they hear and then associate those words with objects and actions. This is the listening vocabulary. The speaking vocabulary follows, as a child's thoughts become more reliant on their ability to self-express without relying on gestures or babbling. Once the reading and writing vocabularies start to develop, through questions and education, the child starts to discover the anomalies and irregularities of language.

In first grade, a child who can read learns about twice as many words as one who cannot. Generally, this gap does not narrow later. This results in a wide range of vocabulary by age five or six, when an English-speaking child will have learned about 1500 words.

Vocabulary grows throughout one's life. Between the ages of 20 and 60, people learn about 6,000 more lemmas, or one every other day. An average 20-year-old knows 42,000 lemmas coming from 11,100 word families. People expand their vocabularies by e.g. reading, playing word games, and participating in vocabulary-related programs. Exposure to traditional print media teaches correct spelling and vocabulary, while exposure to text messaging leads to more relaxed word acceptability constraints.

Importance

 * An extensive vocabulary aids expression and communication.
 * Vocabulary size has been directly linked to reading comprehension.
 * Linguistic vocabulary is synonymous with thinking vocabulary.
 * A person may be judged by others based on their vocabulary.
 * Wilkins (1972) said, "Without grammar, very little can be conveyed; without vocabulary, nothing can be conveyed."

Native-language vocabulary
Estimating average vocabulary size poses various difficulties and limitations due to the different definitions and methods employed such as what is the word, what is to know a word, what sample dictionaries were used, how tests were conducted, and so on. Native speakers' vocabularies also vary widely within a language, and are dependent on the level of the speaker's education.

As a result, estimates vary from 10,000 to 17,000 word families or 17,000-42,000 dictionary words for young adult native speakers of English.

A 2016 study shows that 20-year-old English native speakers recognize on average 42,000 lemmas, ranging from 27,100 for the lowest 5% of the population to 51,700 lemmas for the highest 5%. These lemmas come from 6,100 word families in the lowest 5% of the population and 14,900 word families in the highest 5%. 60-year-olds know on average 6,000 lemmas more.

According to another, earlier 1995 study junior-high students would be able to recognize the meanings of about 10,000–12,000 words, whereas for college students this number grows up to about 12,000–17,000 and for elderly adults up to about 17,000 or more.

For native speakers of German, average absolute vocabulary sizes range from 5,900 lemmas in first grade to 73,000 for adults.

The effects of vocabulary size on language comprehension
The knowledge of the 3000 most frequent English word families or the 5000 most frequent words provides 95% vocabulary coverage of spoken discourse. For minimal reading comprehension a threshold of 3,000 word families (5,000 lexical items) was suggested and for reading for pleasure 5,000 word families (8,000 lexical items) are required. An "optimal" threshold of 8,000 word families yields the coverage of 98% (including proper nouns).

Second language vocabulary acquisition
Learning vocabulary is one of the first steps in learning a second language, but a learner never finishes vocabulary acquisition. Whether in one's native language or a second language, the acquisition of new vocabulary is an ongoing process. There are many techniques that help one acquire new vocabulary.

Memorization
Although memorization can be seen as tedious or boring, associating one word in the native language with the corresponding word in the second language until memorized is considered one of the best methods of vocabulary acquisition. By the time students reach adulthood, they generally have gathered a number of personalized memorization methods. Although many argue that memorization does not typically require the complex cognitive processing that increases retention (Sagarra and Alba, 2006), it does typically require a large amount of repetition, and spaced repetition with flashcards is an established method for memorization, particularly used for vocabulary acquisition in computer-assisted language learning. Other methods typically require more time and longer to recall.

Some words cannot be easily linked through association or other methods. When a word in the second language is phonologically or visually similar to a word in the native language, one often assumes they also share similar meanings. Though this is frequently the case, it is not always true. When faced with a false friend, memorization and repetition are the keys to mastery. If a second language learner relies solely on word associations to learn new vocabulary, that person will have a very difficult time mastering false friends. When large amounts of vocabulary must be acquired in a limited amount of time, when the learner needs to recall information quickly, when words represent abstract concepts or are difficult to picture in a mental image, or when discriminating between false friends, rote memorization is the method to use. A neural network model of novel word learning across orthographies, accounting for L1-specific memorization abilities of L2-learners has recently been introduced (Hadzibeganovic and Cannas, 2009).

The keyword method
One way of learning vocabulary is to use mnemonic devices or to create associations between words, this is known as the "keyword method" (Sagarra and Alba, 2006). It also takes a long time to implement — and takes a long time to recollect — but because it makes a few new strange ideas connect it may help in learning. Also it presumably does not conflict with Paivio's dual coding system because it uses visual and verbal mental faculties. However, this is still best used for words that represent concrete things, as abstract concepts are more difficult to remember.

Word lists
Several word lists have been developed to provide people with a limited vocabulary for rapid language proficiency or for effective communication. These include Basic English (850 words), Special English (1,500 words), General Service List (2,000 words), and Academic Word List. Some learner's dictionaries have developed defining vocabularies which contain only most common and basic words. As a result, word definitions in such dictionaries can be understood even by learners with a limited vocabulary. Some publishers produce dictionaries based on word frequency or thematic groups.

The Swadesh list was made for investigation in linguistics.

Focal vocabulary
Focal vocabulary is a specialized set of terms and distinctions that is particularly important to a certain group: those with a particular focus of experience or activity. A lexicon, or vocabulary, is a language's dictionary: its set of names for things, events, and ideas. Some linguists believe that lexicon influences people's perception of things, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. For example, the Nuer of Sudan have an elaborate vocabulary to describe cattle. The Nuer have dozens of names for cattle because of the cattle's particular histories, economies, and environments. This kind of comparison has elicited some linguistic controversy, as with the number of "Eskimo words for snow". English speakers with relevant specialised knowledge can also display elaborate and precise vocabularies for snow and cattle when the need arises.

title: Vocabulary


text:
Talk:Vocabulary

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 18 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hillhs20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Overhaul
This article was two sentences long. I edited and merged Vocabulary, Vocabulary Size and Focal Vocabulary. Based on the tags of the latter two articles mentioned, the current all-inclusive Vocabulary article needs some work. Encyclopedic tone, logical order and information analysis (references and usefulness) will get this article in shape. Also, can anyone find the average vocabulary size and growth? A graph would be great. Ytiugibma (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job.98.82.179.245 (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge Lexicon and Vocabulary?
It is very amusing that this is even being considered, especially in the VOCABULARY article. I imagine opticians are considering the distinction between angle and angel a mistake. Perhaps otologists are making the same mistake with right and write.

 * Vocabulary voh-kab-yuh-ler-ee n. "All the words known and used by a particular person"
 * Lexicon lek-si-kon n. "All the words of a particular language or subject"

Let's leave things as they are, huh? Ytiugibma (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Justification for merging vocabulary and lexicon articles
First of all, please note that I'm not saying that I disagree with the proposal to merge lexicon and vocabulary articles, but I was wondering if someone might comment on the reasons for that suggestion. I'm currently editing a linguistics document and actually came here because I was hoping to find some direction to help answer the question of whether the terms vocabulary and lexicon are interchangeable (and it seems that I'm not the only one who is interested in that question). They might well be, but was wondering if someone could address both the merits of combining them and of keeping them separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.81.41.91 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See below. Lundse (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * It seems barmy to me (and ironic) to merge the terms. Lexicon is also a game, plus it has connotations of being a book or a physical manifestation, whereas a vocabulary in the most common usage sense is almost certainly a theoretical body of words existing in people's minds. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

 * Oppose They are not interchangable terms - lexicon is the words in the language (or the book detailing this), vocabulary are the words a specific person has in that language. There is plenty of things to expand this article with - I came here looking for details on "active vocabulary" and what it's counterpart(s?) are called; this information would not fit under the "lexicon" heading. Lundse (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

JimCubb (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the reason that is stated above. I came look for details or even estimates on the sizes of what I would call "working vocabulary" for various languages.  That is, for general conversation how many words / word families are need in English, Spanish, Korean, etc?
 * Oppose : Don't do it!! The lexicon article is terrible, but killing it off won't help anything.  Besides, they're different things.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.18.70 (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ideas for expansion
ideas for expansion: size of average person's vocab: differnet stages of childhood & adult (not sure myself of the stats) -- Tarquin 23:16 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article and should not be moved to wiktionary. Rob Price 02:16, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Realistic account of a person's vocabulary
I don't know what BE university is, but I'd be amazed if an average vocabulary was 50K words, especially if you don't count inflections. Can anyone find more accurate numbers? Agentsoo 15:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

A vocabulary of 20K word families for a college student seems to be a more realistic estimate.

The below is cut-and-paste from an article by Paul Nation, a recognized expert on vocabulary. See http://www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/papers/cup.html

How many words do native speakers know?

For over 100 years there have been published reports of systematic attempts to measure the vocabulary size of native speakers of English. There have been various motivations for such studies but behind most of them lies the idea that vocabulary size is a reflection of how educated, intelligent, or well read a person is. A large vocabulary size is seen as being something valuable. Unfortunately the measurement of vocabulary size has been bedeviled by serious methodological problems largely centring around the questions of "What should be counted as a word?", "How can we draw a sample of words from a dictionary to make a vocabulary test?", and "How do we test to see if a word is known or not?". Failure to deal adequately with these questions has resulted in several studies of vocabulary size which give very misleading results. For a discussion of these issues see Nation (1993a), Lorge and Chall (1963), and Thorndike (1924).

Teachers of English as a second language may be interested in measures of native speakers' vocabulary size because these can provide some indication of the size of the learning task facing second language learners, particularly those who need to study and work alongside native speakers in English medium schools and universities or workplaces.

At present the best conservative rule of thumb that we have is that up to a vocabulary size of around 20,000 word families, we should expect that native speakers will add roughly 1000 word families a year to their vocabulary size. That means that a five year old beginning school will have a vocabulary of around 4000 to 5000 word families. A university graduate will have a vocabulary of around 20,000 word families (Goulden, Nation and Read, 1990). These figures are very rough and there is likely to be very large variation between individuals. These figures exclude proper names, compound words, abbreviations, and foreign words. A word family is taken to include a base word, its inflected forms, and a small number of reasonably regular derived forms (Bauer and Nation, 1993). Some researchers suggest vocabulary sizes larger than these (see Nagy, this volume), but in the well conducted studies (for example, D'Anna, Zechmeister nad Hall, 1991) the differences are mainly the result of differences in what items are included in the count and how a word family is defined.

A small study of the vocabulary growth of non-native speakers in an English medium primary school (Jamieson, 1976) suggests that in such a situation non-native speakers' vocabulary grows at the same rate as native speakers' but that the initial gap that existed between them is not closed. For adult learners of English as a foreign language, the gap between their vocabulary size and that of native speakers is usually very large, with many adult foreign learners of English having a vocabulary size of much less than 5000 word families in spite of having studied English for several years. Large numbers of second language learners do achieve vocabulary sizes that are like those of educated native speakers, but they are not the norm.

 * This is a joke... a five-year-old knowing 5,000 "word families?" Learning another 1,000 each year? That's nearly three new words a day ("word families" no less).. you've got to be kidding me. I doubt the average person learns more than a hundred new words a year, on average, if even close to that. Dan 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually I think I have heard a similar number, though I don't remember the source. Also, as a footnote, learning a "word family" wouldn't necessary have to be more difficult than learning a new word; if you know "cat" and "dog" form plural with -s, it wouldn't be too difficult to conclude that "puma" also likely would have a regular plural with a s, or if you know verbs "jump" and "run" forms a regular 2nd person present tense with -s, you could also figure out that the word "meet" likely would follow the same scheme. If the words follow regular schemes, it isn't harder to learn variant forms. 惑乱 分からん 17:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Steven Pinker, in The Language Instinct (New York: Harper Collins, 1994, page 271) states that children are capable of learning a new word every two hours. The numbers here are not out of the ballpark.

 * Yes but ... to me the linear scale definitely is out of the ballpark :) There's no way that the rate of word-learning I am doing at 2 is equivalent to the rate of word-learning I am doing in university.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was an order of magnitude greater for the 2 year old.  That's not to say that the two year old is more capable; just that vocabulary is way down low on the list by the time you are in university. —  r obbiemuﬃn  page  talk 14:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 * There is so much important information missing in this article, basic information that must be included. I will do some research but much more help is needed. Davido321 11:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

When I was trying to get into the first grade at less than 6, I was told I couldn't do that unless I knew 50 words. And my mother argued with the school about that.WFPM (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Now I read Isaac Asimov, who says that the voluminous vocabulary of the English language is what makes it so good at explaining concepts and ideas.WFPM (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC) In Lucretius' "On the nature of things" he apoligizes for the inability of Latin to permit his adequate explanation of the phenomena of nature.WFPM (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

About some studies
I heard there was some studies that made a correlation between the vocabulary of a person and succes in life. Of course I read that from http://www.improvingvocabulary.org/ and I don't know if any of this is true. I'd like someone to investigate this to point out the studies that show this to see if it is founded or not. Z E U S 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Online utility
Someone have deleted Vocabulary builder from external links. Don't you find that online utility useful for readers of this article? --217.23.199.99 10:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Whether a web site is "useful" is not a relevant criterion—Wikipedia is not a web directory. An  external link must contain information about the topic that extends what is in the article. —johndburger 12:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

active/passive vocabulary internal links
The links for active vocabulary and passive vocabulary lead to pages that redirect to here. I am removing them for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.113.25 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Motor imaging
An anonymous editor added a huge amount of material on "motor imaging". This may deserve to be in Wikipedia in its own article, but does not deserve to be 3/4 of an article on Vocabulary. —johndburger 12:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

 * (Wikimedia syntax error removed) ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 13:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 * What the heck is that? :)  Well, so at this time the entire section on vocabulary "acquisition" is gone. Do we need it?  If so go and readd it.  In the mean time I have removed the section header since the section was literally empty. —  r obbiemuﬃn  page  talk 15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 * That was a one edit editor (User:Binta12) getting into some cut-n-paste trouble on his/her computer. johndburger didn't dump that syntax error here. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 13:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

to the Wookie
Please stop with replacing all word that begin "vocab-" with "wocab-". It's funny though :) I was laughing mid way through once I realized there was more than one. —  r obbiemuﬃn  page  talk 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What is a "word family"?
Couldn't find it in my dictionary. Do we mean lexemes? ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 09:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * you probably won't find it in a general dictionary, but you'll find it in the fields of linguistics, psychology,education, etc. Generally it refers to a base word, its derivations (lemma), most common affixes, and transparent compounds. The definition varies by language, as isolating languages (e.g. Thai, Vietnamese) don't really have a concept of word family in the sense that synthetic languages (Sanskrit, Latin) would. Myqlarson (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

the whole thing
list of the words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.94.97 (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Types of Vocabulary?
The section has two (print) citations but seems to be based on too much simplification/assumption to be worthwhile. Specifically, the statement that reading vocabulary includes all other types of vocabulary assumes a degree of literacy (which would depend on whether the language is phonetically written) implicitly and without basis. To take an extreme example, consider that an entirely illiterate person has a reading vocabulary of zero, but can have a listening and speaking vocabulary in the thousands; so it is nonsense to say reading vocabulary "is the largest type of vocabulary simply because it includes the other three." Yothgoboufnir (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree. I'll work on that soon. The relative sizes depend on a few factors, literacy status being one of them. Even among literate adults, the relative status of literacy within their larger social community might play a role as well [ Myqlarson (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC) ]

Learning Vocabulary
There are some sections dealing with effective ways of learning vocabulary. Browsing the history, there are also many links which have come and gone to sites which claim to improve the efficiency of vocabulary acquisition. While I'm not really in favour of the links, I do think that an article devoted to the relative merits of the various methods of vocabulary acquisition would be a worthwhile separate article. Perhaps we could even start with a simple chart listing the basic study techniques, their advantages/disadvantages, and studies which have investigated them? Some for consideration:
 * keyword method
 * flashcards (including various recall schedules)
 * morphological analysis
 * cognates
 * etc

Any thoughts? [ Myqlarson (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC) ]

Cannot be true
The article boldly claims:
 * A person's reading vocabulary is all the words he or she can recognize when reading. This is the largest type of vocabulary simply because it includes the other three. (Referring to Listening, Writing and Speaking vocabulary)

I won't bother adding a request for citations, since it cannot be true, considering analfabetism, dyslexia, simple don't-know-how-to-spell and such. If those phrases "X:ing vocabularies" are real academic terms, then their sections should be reviewed and expanded. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. It's only true in the case of literate adults who grow up in cultures which place a high value on literacy. Those people are probably a minority in the world, but tend to comprise the majority o language researchers, which explains this common assertion. Myqlarson (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad Footnote Link
Regarding footnote Number 7

I don't know how to fix a footnote that links to an exterior page that was either a mistake to begin with or no longer exists.

It's a shame, too, because I really wanted to take a closer look at this study.

It reads:

^ "What does txting do 2 language: The influences of exposure to messaging and print media on acceptability constraints". Retrieved 2012-03-09.

Here's the the link's URL which gives an error message saying the document cannot be located:

http://gradworks.umi.com/MR/75/MR75222.html>

Anyone know what to do here?

Mykstor (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Google!
 * And, I fixed the ref. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Chinese/Japanese Mistranslation
In the "Types of Vocabulary" section, Reading vocabulary subsection, This article states "For example, a Chinese speaker may not recognize that 麒麟 (giraffe) is pronounced qi lin, a Japanese speaker may not recognize that 麒麟 (giraffe) is pronounced kirin."

The two characters in question 麒麟 (qilin) in fact refer to a mythical Chinese unicorn, and do not mean giraffe in any way. The author of this section does not quote any sources, and You can see from multiple Chinese Dictionaries: http://www.mdbg.net/chindict/chindict.php?page=worddict&wdrst=0&wdqb=%E9%BA%92%E9%BA%9F and http://www.nciku.com/search/zh/detail/%E9%BA%92%E9%BA%9F/31665 that these characters refer to a mythical creature and not a giraffe.

I think that this entire example provides little value to the reader and should be removed completely. However if it is to be kept, please make the adjustment as noted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karatkdj9 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Possibly, the one who wrote that was mainly familiar with Japanese. According to WWWJDIC, while 麒麟 can mean the Chinese mythical creature, it may also mean ‘giraffe’ in Japanese. For Chinese, the translation ‘giraffe’ might be wrong nonetheless. --77.187.102.13 (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Amount of vocabulary possible to add per day?
While I won't dare to ask that to be included in the article (even though I think it is a good idea), could someone point me to research and studies, which examine the question, how much is the optimal and maximal new vocabulary a second-/foreign-language learner can obtain and later retain (if properly repeated) per day or week? While in the beginning 20 words might look manageable, I doubt any one individual could keep up this level of vocabulary acquisition over time. But on the other hand, if one would commit to studying vocabulary several hours per day (basically full-time), the situation might look different. All these things (e.g. averaged long-time performance, i.e. actual retention) are sure researched already, I just don't know about it. Thanks in advance. --Philipp Grunwald (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspect deep inaccuracies in average vocabulary citations
I am a person of gifted level IQ who endeavors to learn new somewhat rare words for personal study. Learning rare words used in classical literature such as adjuration, importunate, evanesce, etc., really only adds perhaps 500 to 1000 words to the vocabulary of the truly gifted in a lifetime. At the utmost there may be perhaps 3500 of these "50 cent" words entirely which are used in classical literature, which only a literary genius would know. I have added 150 of these words to my vocabulary in 6 months by constant study recently, which few people, even those who read, ever do, and I now have a pretty gifted level vocabulary. Your article suggests that from 1st to 7th grade, a person adds about 8500 words to their vocabulary (from 1500 to 10000 you say) and then another 2,000 to 7,000 in college, (to 12,000 or 17,000 total you say) Heavens! Where are all of these extra words coming from, if only perhaps 3500 gifted words exist beyond a normal vocabulary? I just know that your estimates on words added after 1rst grade cannot be accurate at all. Most people learn the basics of the English language from age 2 to age 8 or so. After that, it takes constant application and a highly literary nature to learn even a few hundred more words in a lifetime. I just know that learning 2,000 to 7,000 words in college is not correct. Not even close. A person studying the dictionary with constant application might be able to add 100 words with some trouble in 6 months, as I did. Few people even in college really take the time to learn such words however. In all of my reading and learning new words from 4th grade to present at age 42, I believe I've only added perhaps a few hundred uncommon or gifted words to my vocabulary beyond the words that any average person would use. To speak of adding 8,000 to 15,000 words to one's vocabulary does not seem realistic to me as someone who studies rare words. Adding a hundred is a superhuman feat. I'm only including common nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, articles, etc., and not proper names or geographical places in my definition of the average literary vocabulary for this post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.79.246.182 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

i got selected for job — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.208.170 (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding to Introduction
This article is fairly complete. However, the introduction is too scarce. The introduction provides a good definition and a solid base but encompasses nothing of which is written below. The introduction needs to be bolstered so that the reader can get a greater understanding of what the article is about. The introduction should be mapped out to hit many of the key components that are written below, including one's knowledge of vocabulary, the types of vocabulary, and general knowledge about vocabulary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillhs20 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 * The lead section is supposed to be a fairly short summary, see MOS:LEAD. Your additions add way too much detail. It also expressed your personal opinions - see WP:NPOV. We should not be telling the reader what is 'great', 'vital', 'important' and etc. in Wikipedia's voice. - MrOllie (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vocabulary


text:
Talk:Judeo-Christo-Islamic

Hello, I have edited some of the discussion below to remove intemperate language. My hope is that readers will find discussion a bit friendlier here now. The original material can be found in Archive 1. Silver Maple

-

I believe it is best to list such terms alphabetically. Susan Mason

There is precendent for that. - &#35918&#30505

This page should be deleted. There is no Christo-Islamic-Judeo tradition to speak of. Each of these three different religions has very different views on theology, faith, ethics, religious law, and inter-faith relations. Further, there is no content to this supposed article at all. RK

This page obviously does have content-are u sure your browser is working correctly? Christianity and Islam both derive from Judaism (or at least claim to), its kinda hard for me to see how there is not Christo-Islamic-Judeo tradition. They all have very similar views on how there is a God and he wants people to be good and stuff. Susan Mason

 * Susan, there is no content here. Just links to other articles. And the religions are different. Wikipedia is an academic encyclopedia.

 * The content here links to other articles, lists are very useful. At some point Im sure there will be more text here as well, the wiki is a work in progress. Susan Mason

 * They are not the same... but they share a lineage.. and Abraham in particular... not to mention the ten commandments. Idolatry is the subject of one of the most fundamental commandments. I would add that its better to disrespect differences than it is to disrespect principles held in common. Im not typing to a brick wall am I? - &#35918&#30505

Your claims about Islam are grossly false; they most certainly do not have the Ten Commandments anywhere in Quran. In fact, Muslims view both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament as deliberate lies, that were made by Jews and Christians to hide the true word of God! Your claims are simply fictional. Your position is thus unsupportable. RK

I am often amazed at how similar fundamental christianity, judaism, and islam all are. Susan Mason

 * They are not the same at all. These are three different religions with very different points of view. Your personal wishes are not facts.

 * Both of you: slinging "A is true" and "No, B is true" renders the "discuss this page" page useless -- this is not a discussion. Can't either of you support your opinions, even badly?  For my part, I'm inclined to think there probably could be something here, but until there is, it should redirect to Abrahamic religion. Tuf-Kat

 * I agree that one should support one's position. Susan has been unable to do so, while I have. Further, as you can see for yourself, most of the Wikipedia community has already agreed with my point of view. See the article on the Judeo-Christian tradition.  RK

We have stated that christianity and islam are derived from judaism, what more support do we need? And of course, Abrahamic religion is completely acceptable. Susan Mason

 * Toker's assessment of the situation is crystal.. though I would not be hasty in implementing the suggestion of a redirect. And Robert, your just plain wrong about Islam. I suggest this as a primer http://www.alislam.org/books/study-of-islam/books.html- - &#35918&#30505

 * Muslims do not study the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament; they teach that these works were deliberately corrupted, and contain lies about God. Muslims thus teach that the only reliable truth about God can be found in the Quran. RK

 * Are you arguing that Islam is not derived from Judaism? Susan Mason
 * No, RK claimed that Muslims revere the Old & New Testaments but believe it has been altered and corrupted. Thus, the only true source of the word of God is the Koran.  What should be here, if anything, would be the ideas that the Koran and both Testaments agree on. Tuf-Kat

 * Thank you, Tuf-Kat. Islam is not really derived from Judaism. That would be a distortion of its true historical origins, which lies in an original religion that drew from Arab paganism, parts of Judaism, and parts of Christianity, and which created its own theology. RK

 * The more I think about this, the more I feel this should be redirected to Abrahamic religion, since it could then provide info on Rastafarianism and Baha'ai and how all five are similar and different (plus any more small Abrahamic religions I don't know about, if any). Tuf-Kat

At best, "Christo-Islamic-Judaic tradition" is an ideological construct used by a small group of people towards particular ends. It certainly is not an axample of good/current scholarship on comparative religion. At best, the article should explore who introduced the term. and why, and how its use has spread. Slrubenstein

 * I agree with RK and Slrubenstein. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are three distinct religions, with different traditions. They have different holy scriptures, although Judaism and Christianity agree on many of the same ones, and some "Old Testament"/Tanakh stories are (I think) retold in the Quran. Within "traditional" Christianity as understood by Catholicism and Orthodoxy, "Tradition" means what Christ has taught the Church, and what the Church has taught successive generations of Christians. I'm sure you would agree that this tradition is quite different from the tradition handed down to today's Jews, and the tradition handed down to today's muslims. Yes, there are some things in common, but that does not make them the same tradition. I would even argue that Christianity no longer shares a single tradition since the Great Schism, and certainly not since the Protestant Reformation, although all these traditions have much more in common with each other than they do with Judaism or Islam. Wesley 17:08 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

It is best to redirect to Abrahamic religions. You cannot deny that when compared to Druidism or Wiccanism or Hinduism, that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are clearly related and of the same family. Susan Mason
 * The very notion of "related" and "family" are ideological and reflect a very particular approach to the study of religion (as is the notion "Abrahamic religion"). Perhaps there are some legitimate scholars of comparative religion who have made this claim.  If so -- please enlighten us and provide the names and citations. Slrubenstein

 * How about you name a scholar whom you feel is authoritative and we'll call him up and see if he thinks Christianity and Islam are historically derived from Judaism. Did Jesus read the Torah? Was Muhammed aware of the Christian worldview? Have Jews ever sat down and talked with Christians and Muslims?  Susan Mason

 * A great many Jews are involved in inter-faith study and dialogue, myself included. Maybe you should as well. RK

Judaism as we know it developed around the same time as Christianity. Of course Mohammed was "aware" of Christianity; that doesn't mean that Christianity and Islam belong ot some "family." Mohammed and other Islamic leaders were familiar with lots of stuff! Have Jews sat down with Christians and Muslims? Of course! But that doesn't make them members of the same family -- Jews have sat down with stoics and Zoroastrianists too. In any event, all the scholars that I know of (Wellhausen, Vermes, Fredricksen) who see a link between Judaism and Christianity emphasize the break between the two, and call attention to the non-Jewish influences on Christianity. You might as well just claim that Mithraism is the "father" religion of Christianity. Now I repeat my request: name your sources. Slrubenstein

 * But your sources (Wellhausen, Vermes, Fredricksen) appear to be agreeing with me that there is a distinct and noteworthy relationship between Judaism and Christianity or else they wouldnt be talking about a break or rift in the first place! Nobody talks about the "break" between Shintoism and Shamanism because there was never much of a connection to begin with. Wasn't Jesus a Jew? And don't Christians consider the Jewish "bible" to be holy? And don't Islamic people consider the Jewish and Christian bibles to be holy? Susan Mason

 * Yes -- but these facts do not therefore mean that there is a "tradition." I think scholars who jump from these facts to construct some Judeo-Christian or Judeo-Islamic-Christian tradition are doing so too hastily, and for ideological reasons; the supposition of the "tradition" invariably distorts our understanding of the very specifics you mention.  By the way, Wellhausen, Vermes, and Fredricksen are not "my" sources -- they belong to everyone!  But if you reject them please tell us why, and please tell us what sources you prefer to rely on for such articles. Slrubenstein

 * First off, they are your sources as long as you are the only one bringing them up during this discussion, seondly, I do support them. Please refer me to where they specifically state that there is no such thing as a Christo-Islamic-Judeo tradition, something which you have already agreed is a scholary understanding of the religions:

 * SLR: "I think scholars who jump from these facts to construct some Judeo-Christian or Judeo-Islamic-Christian tradition are doing so too hastily"

 * obviously then scholars do believe in such a tradition, although, of course, not all scholars feel this way. I am sure any discussion of the subject will benefit from the opinions of Wellhausen, Vermes, and Fredricksen, so I urge you to find relevant passages. Susan Mason

 * They never refer to a "Judeo Christian" tradition to my knowledge, that's my point. But for the moment, I really would like to know your sources.  You have added much more content to this article than I have, so your sources are more important. Slrubenstein

I haven't added anything to this article. There isn't anything in this article. What are you talking about? Susan Mason
 * You are right -- my mistake, and I apologize. Kaufman: The Religion of Israel, Wellhausen: Prolegomena to a history of the Religion of Israel, Fredriksen: From Jesus to Christ, Vermes: Jesus the Jew. Slrubenstein

There is some basic similarity between these religions, are they not monotheistic? Do they not have many of the same figures held in positions of holy reverence? Do they not have taboos, morals, and sins in common? Do they not have geographical and historical similarities? Susan Mason

 * Susan was right, there is no real concent to the article, and I checked the constituent articles and she hasn't been making many real substantive contributions to those pages either. It is possible that she is using these talk pages to educate herself.  I do think you are raising a very valid point about not promoting our own views through the contents of articles, all I am saying is that in this instance Susan is not the main culprit. Slrubenstein

Sheesh! I never even realized the backwards order of the names. Judeo-Christo-Islamic is proper, as it is inline with the order of "inheritance" as far as Abrahamic religions go. - #35918&#30505< Why not use alphabetical? This is definitely not a common use term, and otherwise there will be argument about who gets to go first. In the future, on similar subjects, there may be argument about which actually came first. Its best to use alphabetica. Susan Mason

 * If it is not a common term -- indeed, if it is not used in the literature and is scarcely heard of outside of Wikipedia, then it does not merit a Wikipedia page. An encyclopedia is not a place to publish a contributor's original theories or favorite idiosyncratic expressions; it is a place to collect together knowledge that is established elsewhere in the world.

 * Real-World Data: The word "Judeo-Christo-Islamic" has 37 Google hits. The permutation which has the most is "Judeo-Islamic-Christian" at 73. For comparison, "Abrahamic religion" has 26 800 and "Abrahamic faith" has 16 800.

 * This suggests that none of the JCI/JIC/CJI expressions has significant currency when compared to "Abrahamic". Since "JCI" and "Abrahamic" both admittedly denote the same idea (the common heritage of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) I propose that "Abrahamic" is the correct term for Wikipedia to use to denote that idea. --FOo

I agree. Susan Mason

I might agree, if Abrahamic had treatment for the uses of these terms... however, the idea of exploring links between religions is not invalid is it? how do we denote these? - &#35918&#30505

Bear in mind, that eventually we here on the wikipedia are going to come to understand something new and original, its inevitable. The fact religions are similar is a good place to start, I think. Afterall, it isn't my POV, its God's POV, and God's POV is NPOV because he is God and he can do that. Susan Mason

 * Dontcha go getting all nUtTy, uNitaRIAn, or mUShy on us now SuE... - &#35918&#30505 ps.: "And if you think peace is a common goal, that goes to show how little you know...."

lol Susan Mason

Whew, that's a lot of arguing. My ignorant self proposes the following:

Regarding names, I suggest the alphabetical, in order to be the most neutral. All combinations (Judeo-Christo-Islamic, Judeo-Islamic-Christian, etc.) can redirect to the alphabetical article.

As this page is named X-X-X_tradition, let's fill it with a list of things that all three religions have in common (i.e. regardless of their relatedness or non-relatedness). We all know at least one: monotheism. For some more, try this Google query. If after some time, it is found that there is very little in common between them, then we can disregard this as a separate topic and redirect to Abrahamic religions. Can everyone agree on this? (I hope so) -Fagan

nonsense... appreciate the concern, but the issue of titleship, despite the jabbering, is itself not a great controversy... If we were to continue in the use... it wouldnt be any less political to change it to CIJ - anyone who considers the order to be paramount in terms of vanity - is not going to be happy in any case... "abrahamic" seems like a solution, but that context is not a comparative religion term in itself... It would need a little treatment, thats all im saying... - &#35918&#30505

actually RK strongly disputes that this article is even valid. He says it is absurd to suggest that these religions are similar. Abrahamic religion is an article on this subject, as are the pages which this one links to. And a decision to list things alphabetically seems really neutral to me. This term is not in common usage, and so whatever google says is the most popular variant on this is hardly very important. And I do think Abrahamic religion would be acceptable to most anyone Susan Mason

 * Ms. "Susan Mason" is incorrect about me. She claims that I wrote it is "absurd to suggest that these religions are similar" ? I never wrote any such thing. In fact, I helped edit two articles on Islamic philosophy and Jewish philosophy which give examples of how they are similar!.  RK

He's right to point out differences, and hes keen to, but even he has to back off from bugus notion that there is no relationship at all worthy of comparing... Either your misinterpreting him, (and making too big a deal of what he thinks) or hes wrong... It matters not either way. - &#35918&#30505

Read Islamic philosophy and say there is 'no relationship', clearly there is, and it was explored long ago. Also read modern Islamic philosophy and ask if there are any parallels to modern Jewish or Christian thought. Clearly there are. Then, from an historical point of view, read early Muslim history and ask 'did something similar happen in other writing-based religions that permitted philosophy and theology to mix?' Some would argue clearly yes. Emphasizing the central role of the Prophet Abraham is certainly a good move, as it allows the smaller religions that accept this tradition to be brought in and their insights examined. The J-C-I, J-I-C, stuff is just foolish, avoid it.

A "similarity" is not the same thing as a "tradition" -- the two issues should be treated separately. There is an article on Judeo-Christian tradition, which among other things describes the construction of the "tradition." There is also an article on "Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity," to give a broader view of the relationship between the two. I suggest we handle this topic the same way: any claim about a Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition" is the same thing as "Abrahamic religion" and should be incoprorated into that article. A more general discussion of similarities and differences between these religions can be in articles "Comparing and COntrasting Christianity and Islam" and "Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Islam," "Comparing and Contrasting Judaism and Zoroastrianism," "Comparing and COntrasting Christianity and Mithraism," etc. Slrubenstein

 * Good points. RK 02:07 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Unfortunately most responses and statement contained here are half-correct at best. ANYONE (not just a learned scholar) that has ever taken a course on comparative religions, or a history of religion, has seen the migration and progress of human beings across the globe and the religions that followed. The Abrahamic religions (There are only three (b'hai and Rastafarians are not directly linked to Abraham so the lineage is sketchy here) are connected by the covenant Yahweh made with the descendants of Abraham, to wit all three religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) claim. Islam constructs respect for any monotheistic religion with a holy text, Judaism respects Islam and Christianity, but believes that they have been misguided and have not interpreted G-d's message correctly, only Christianity has deep rooted beliefs against Islam and Judaism.  Now, these are the religions' "official" standings the ideas, beliefs and constructs of individuals of these religions vary greatly (as shown here).

An ACADEMIC dialog should come from ACADEMIA not religious fuver...

One should do due diligence before making brash statements about the connection between these three religions; yes they are very different, but alas, the religions have had close to 1500 years to diverge...

How about some definition?
Okay, so the article addresses how the term is used, who uses it, and why they use it. Fine, but for God's sake, what does the term mean? This may be obvious to you, but it's certainly foggy to me! Omphaloscope » talk 19:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * An excellent point. However, the only way to respond to your pointis for someone to find verifiable sources, and I wonder whether anyone who has worked on this article has done the necessary research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonnotable
This seems to be a nonnotable, pseudo-historical attempt at referring to Abrahamic religion. I propose we redirect to that, as it is much longer, and more accurate. KI 01:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Pecher Talk 09:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Judeo-Christo-Islamic


text:
Pierre-Antoine Berryer

Pierre-Antoine Berryer (4 January 1790 – 29 November 1868) was a French advocate and parliamentary orator. He was the twelfth member elected to occupy Seat Four of the Académie française in 1852.

Early years
Berryer was born in Paris, the son of an eminent advocate and counselor to the parlement, a direct descendent from the first recorded members of the Berryer family originating from Jean de Candie, lord of Berryer in Bourges, in the person of Denis de Candie de la Berryer, royal commissioner of waters and forests of Domfront and Le Mans (died in 1630).

He was educated at the Collège de Juilly. Upon leaving he adopted the law profession. He was admitted advocate in 1811. He married in that same year. In the great conflict of the period between Napoleon I and the Bourbons, Berryer, like his father, was an ardent Legitimist. In the spring of 1815, at the opening of the campaign of the Hundred Days, he followed Louis XVIII of France to Ghent as a volunteer.

Career
After the second restoration he distinguished himself as a courageous advocate of moderation in the treatment of the military adherents of the emperor. He assisted his father and Dupin in the unsuccessful defence of Marshal Ney before the chamber of peers. He undertook the defence of General Cambronne and General Debelle, procuring the acquittal of the former and the pardon of the latter. By this time he had a very large business as advocate, and was engaged on behalf of journalists in many press prosecutions.

Berryer stood forward with a noble resolution to maintain the freedom of the press, and he severely censured the rigorous measures of the police department. In 1830, not long before the fall of Charles X, Berryer was elected to the chamber of deputies. He appeared there as the champion of the king and encouraged him in his reactionary policy. After the revolution of July, when the Legitimists withdrew in a body, Berryer alone retained his seat as deputy. He unsuccessfully resisted the abolition of the hereditary peerage. He advocated trial by jury in press prosecutions, the extension of municipal franchises, and other liberal measures.

In May 1832, he hastened from Paris to see the Duchess of Berry on her landing in the south of France. Her purpose was to organize an insurrection in favour of her son, the Duke of Bordeaux, who has since become known as the Comte de Chambord. Berryer attempted to turn her from her purpose. Failing to do, he set out for Switzerland. But he was arrested, imprisoned, and brought to trial as one of the insurgents. He was immediately acquitted. In the following year he pleaded for the liberation of the duchess, made a memorable speech in defence of François-René de Chateaubriand, who was prosecuted for his violent attacks on the government of Louis-Philippe of France, and undertook the defence of several Legitimist journalists.

Among the more noteworthy events of his subsequent career were his defence of Louis Napoleon after the ridiculous affair of Boulogne in 1840, and a visit to England in December 1843 for the purpose of formally acknowledging the pretender Henri, comte de Chambord who was then living in London as "Henry V" and lawful king of France. Berryer was an active member of the National Assembly convoked after the revolution of February 1848. He again visited the pretender, then at Wiesbaden, and fought in the old cause. His long parliamentary career came to an end with a courageous protest against the coup d'état of 2 December 1851.

After a lapse of twelve years, however, he appeared once more in his forsaken field as a deputy to the Corps Législatif. Berryer was elected as a member of the Académie française in 1854. On his visit to Henry Brougham, 1st Baron Brougham and Vaux in 1865, a banquet was given in his honour by the benchers of the Temple and of Lincoln's Inn. In November 1868, he left Paris of his own volition to retire to his country seat at Augerville, and there he died on 29 November.

title: Pierre-Antoine Berryer