Not at all.

English has an uncountable thousands of words it doesn’t need.  If you don’t believe me, check out “A Word a Day,” and learn the meanings of words that are completely useless.  The last two days brought us:

• April 14: Flocculent (adjective: having a fluffy, woolly texture).
• April 13: Impetrate (verb: to obtain by request or entreaty).

Maybe this impressed people a century ago, but if I wrote that a sheep was flocculent, I think you’d be rolling your eyes.

While some English speakers 400 years ago were discovering gravity, developing calculus, using newly minted telescopes to explore our solar system, and refining our understanding of logic as originally put forth by Aristotle, others were inventing words for groups of animals.

Sure, it’s useful to have words like “pack” (for dogs), “herd” (for cows and horses), “flock” (for birds), and perhaps a few others.  But what about a group of owls (a parliament), flamingos (a flamboyance), or ferrets (a business)?  And that’s just the beginning.

By contrast, Spanish has too few words, IMO.  For those interested, here are the 15+ possible meanings in English of the verb “llevar.” As someone who made an honest attempt to learn the language, I’d go into panic mode when someone would say something with any conjugation of that verb.  S***! Is he talking about wearing something, Giving someone a ride? Bringing something? Getting along well with someone?  Stealing something?

Is It Odd that Many Words in English are Supernumerary? Or Is that Superfluous? Extraneous? Unnecessary?