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

Arrggg ...

Zipf's "law" is not a law. It is a description of a curve (P(a) = 1/(p^a)
where a ~= 1). It describes a *FAMILY* of curves. It is a description. It is
not a law. It is not (to read some of the comments here over the last few
days) even a good idea. <sigh>.

Now, there has been a lot of yak of "longer words are used less", which may
be true in some langauge groupes. I would suggest we compare (say) the
corpus for Chinese and see if that holds. Now compare the Chinese corpus to
the Hawai'ian corpus, and see if that still holds. Obviously, the
hawaki'ians should be speaking mostly chinese. (and for the literal minded
... that was just sarcasm, but if you must, flame on if it makes you feel
better).

I mostly lurk this group because (with a couple of notable exceptions) there
is far too much iignorance. I f you want to discuss a subject, please,
please please have some knowledge about it first.

Back to lurk mode



+---------- Haiku for today -------------
|
| Eagles may soar high,
| But weasels don't get sucked in
| To scramjet engines.
|
+-----------------------------------------
|
| Creationism?
| *I* am not come from such stock
| As Humanity
|
+-----------------------------------------
|
| Order? Everything!
| The second mouse gets the cheese
| The first is cat food
|
+----------------------------------------


exuyangi@...
ICQ: 76799701

>From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>Reply-To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>To: Grzegorz Jagodzinski <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re[2]: [tied] Re: *kap-
>Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:39:21 -0400
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Originating-IP: 216.93.66.206
>X-Sender: BMScott@...
>Received: from n18a.bulk.scd.yahoo.com ([66.94.237.47]) by
>mc9-f28.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sun, 2 Oct 2005
>20:39:32 -0700
>Received: from [66.218.66.59] by n18.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Oct
>2005 03:39:26 -0000
>Received: from [66.218.66.34] by mailer8.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03
>Oct 2005 03:39:26 -0000
>Received: (qmail 87565 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2005 03:39:25 -0000
>Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP;
>3 Oct 2005 03:39:25 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.mx.voyager.net) (216.93.66.206) by
>mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2005 03:39:24 -0000
>Received: from localhost (d254.as2.clev.oh.core.com [216.214.12.129])by
>mail2.mx.voyager.net (8.13.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id j933dMXZ084794for
><cybalist@yahoogroups.com>; Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:39:24 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jGE7wf8KpNrVMm3I0YxBZrft36W1UDvU8M=
>Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
>DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima;
>d=yahoogroups.com;b=KwKEg0HChsKO5CAgcpYGmGKYl98ItNwQk4zsITBLMWZx4FlNco30Hqzt3mBDWvGnb3BDGXsbfhdC3EAARNrEzXhVE4ko9leY4RZ94cc8E8geHzbCTSUW7pw15lQvj8JM;
>X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email
>X-Apparently-To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.12.00) Personal
>References: <dhnn7f+ntdj@eGroups.com>
><00c101c5c7aa$4c717980$9801a8c0@...>
>X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0
>X-Yahoo-Profile: bmscotttg
>Mailing-List: list cybalist@yahoogroups.com; contact
>cybalist-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Delivered-To: mailing list cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>List-Id: <cybalist.yahoogroups.com>
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
>Return-Path:
>sentto-1279838-39038-1128310765-exuyangi=hotmail.com@...
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2005 03:39:32.0604 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[11379BC0:01C5C7CC]
>
>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
>
>