Re[2]: [tied] Re: *kap-

At 7:37:36 PM on Sunday, October 2, 2005, Grzegorz
Jagodzinski wrote:

> bmscotttg wrote:

>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>>> At 8:15:17 PM on Saturday, October 1, 2005, Grzegorz
>>> Jagodzinski wrote:

>> [...]

>>>> All laws are descriptive, contrary to theories whose
>>>> aim is to answer the question "why". However, laws also
>>>> *require* things to happen so-and-so, in order to
>>>> satisfy what the laws say. As Newton's law requires
>>>> apples to fall onto the ground, so Zipf's law requires
>>>> frequent words to be shortened (if they are too long).
>>>> Both things *must* happen.

>>> Don't be ridiculous. 'The length of a word tends to bear
>>> an inverse relationship to its relative frequency'
>>> doesn't require anything of any specific word; it's a
>>> vague, qualitative description of a lexicon.

>> Okay, now I have more time. Newton's law does not require
>> apples to fall; it says that unless prevented, they do
>> fall.

> A law does not require to fall but says that they do
> fall... Really, it is dividing a hair into four.

Not at all. It's a fundamental distinction. F = GMm/r^2
doesn't make the apple fall; it's an idealized description,
and in fact it's wrong, though not in any way that matters
in the case of an apple.

>> This is a description of what is observed;

> Like any other

... scientific ...

> law.

Precisely. Which is why it doesn't cause the apple to fall,
which is what you're claiming when you say that it
'requires' the apple to fall. There is no such requirement,
since any description may prove to be inaccurate.

[...]

> (even if some people have never heard about it and think
> that Zipf's law is anything else).

I'm afraid that that is precisely your situation.

> Ergo: Zipf's law says that words do shorten if they are
> too frequent, and that they shorten irregularily (because
> independently on phonetic factors).

What you are miscalling Zipf's law says no such thing. Zipf
observed that more frequent words tend to be shorter than
less common ones. First, while there is indeed such a
tendency, and a fairly strong one, it holds only above a
certain lower limit; below that limit the tendency is in the
opposite direction. Secondly, it is a statistical
observation, not a statement of cause and effect. I am
perfectly willing to agree that in fact high frequency often
leads to shortening that may be irregular (and is also
associated with retention of other irregularities), and that
this offers at least a partial explanation of Zipf's
observation. I see no reason to think that such shortening
*must* occur, however, and it's obvious that no such claim
is implicit in Zipf's observation.

[...]

Brian