Hola a todos.
Sería muy interesante conocer cuales son las 1500 palabras que cita Marc Ignasi. Por el disco duro he encontrado una lista procedente del ámbito anglosajón, no muy antigua, y además con cuantificación detallada. A buen seguro que es de gran utilidad ideolingual: Job PS Este es el mensaje ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: Dale Morris, INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TO: Jeffrey Henning, 74774,157 DATE: 2/9/96 11:21 PM RE: top1000.use From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Walker) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 20:43:44 GMT Subject: Re: Top 1000 English words Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: HP Labs, High Speed Electronics Dept., Palo Alto, CA Newsgroups: comp.sources.wanted Lines: 1014 In comp.sources.wanted, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane) writes: > I'm looking for an ftp'able list of the 1000 most common English words in > non-technical sources (otherwise I'd just scan the man pages :-) Culled from one year of USENET traffic, here is my list of the top 1000 words, along with percentage of occurence: (this is from a database of 343945617 total scanned words). -- Rick Walker 4.01838 the 2.43805 to 2.05957 of 1.95582 a 1.70176 I 1.68549 and 1.32531 is 1.23345 in 1.14749 that 0.811128 it 0.809861 for 0.713653 you 0.608371 on 0.607637 be 0.572971 have 0.550857 are 0.537898 with 0.516607 not 0.495937 this 0.492865 The 0.453028 or 0.450606 as 0.428827 was 0.36647 but 0.333821 at 0.323635 In 0.319617 from 0.318724 by 0.296894 an 0.293426 if 0.284022 they 0.278568 about 0.274626 would 0.271224 can 0.26783 one 0.267568 my 0.260243 will 0.258019 all 0.257 X 0.247188 article 0.243054 do 0.235852 edu 0.232097 has 0.213221 like 0.212694 there 0.2122 me 0.211624 writes 0.210243 out 0.209659 your 0.207384 what 0.205958 which 0.202603 UUCP 0.201669 some 0.200472 so 0.192512 we 0.191887 more 0.182256 who 0.18066 any 0.180247 don't 0.17788 up 0.173927 get 0.172152 am 0.171357 A 0.170564 If 0.170116 just 0.167853 he 0.167345 no 0.16423 other 0.163039 people 0.158253 know 0.155878 only 0.155658 their 0.155111 than 0.152515 This 0.152292 It 0.151887 think 0.151685 when 0.151365 them 0.149513 been 0.147283 time 0.14672 had 0.140304 were 0.132269 And 0.131215 Note 0.12924 C 0.129151 COM 0.128763 his 0.123732 should 0.119261 N 0.117737 m 0.116341 S 0.11565 use 0.115605 R 0.113397 P 0.112006 then 0.110857 also 0.109158 good 0.108499 how 0.108498 B 0.108333 could 0.10553 way 0.105457 T 0.104614 very 0.104014 W 0.103779 into 0.101045 E 0.0991447 com 0.0991244 much 0.0982094 M 0.0980431 make 0.09755 because 0.095987 these 0.0945879 does 0.0936212 see 0.0934654 may 0.0930397 O 0.0922899 As 0.0896299 Page 0.0894723 pm 0.0891153 even 0.089067 You 0.0890048 two 0.088464 want 0.0851347 it's 0.0847974 L 0.082975 most 0.082905 new 0.0828994 many 0.082898 well 0.0824665 s 0.0822866 such 0.0821202 system 0.0820755 really 0.0820668 first 0.0812326 HP 0.0803764 same 0.0796571 those 0.0793701 Response 0.0786967 our 0.0786668 now 0.0785711 say 0.0785665 work 0.0785514 being 0.0783275 used 0.0777565 Oct 0.0775259 EDU 0.0775201 U 0.0756343 too 0.0755451 anyone 0.0752037 here 0.0748964 where 0.0747072 over 0.0746071 What 0.0736154 right 0.0735061 But 0.0723516 problem 0.0721922 did 0.0705678 something 0.0704021 go 0.0673641 There 0.0671432 its 0.0671045 her 0.0667504 back 0.0665373 file 0.0661927 We 0.0652429 D 0.0648393 i 0.0646422 still 0.0630114 need 0.0622991 said 0.0622799 find 0.0620444 years 0.0615077 off 0.061089 things 0.0607174 ve 0.0607049 him 0.0604052 after 0.0603767 point 0.0596905 before 0.0596487 etc 0.0594036 cs 0.0593248 take 0.0591858 us 0.0591079 going 0.0587689 They 0.0584691 might 0.0576827 mail 0.0574533 since 0.0574283 never 0.0569497 better 0.0561673 read 0.0561156 name 0.0558126 got 0.0556262 long 0.0553567 someone 0.0550901 she 0.0550023 can't 0.0546895 why 0.0546485 last 0.0545013 few 0.0543528 All 0.0541775 My 0.0541118 number 0.0532997 must 0.0531747 using 0.0528424 own 0.0527156 little 0.0527057 doesn't 0.052645 made 0.0517547 down 0.051682 believe 0.0516814 d 0.0511659 He 0.0511566 net 0.0510409 So 0.050062 while 0.0500474 line 0.0500012 both 0.0499713 around 0.0499297 another 0.0495322 through 0.0494651 For 0.0488467 thing 0.0486359 AT 0.0485498 without 0.0481492 case 0.0481082 Also 0.0478078 No 0.0477389 between 0.047659 year 0.0475011 set 0.0469141 sure 0.0463751 probably 0.0462047 seems 0.045984 Jan 0.0458253 University 0.04575 enough 0.0455557 didn't 0.0455226 e 0.0453653 different 0.0452851 least 0.0451914 J 0.0450065 group 0.0445518 program 0.0443544 else 0.044255 BITNET 0.0441331 put 0.0440875 F 0.0438642 lot 0.0436729 DIRECT 0.0434138 John 0.043313 each 0.0432295 V 0.0431565 It's 0.0430463 information 0.0429042 ATT 0.0426422 part 0.042316 How 0.0423087 Any 0.0423015 question 0.0422421 old 0.0421189 real 0.0419372 course 0.0419139 anything 0.0416958 fact 0.0410928 H 0.0407198 When 0.0406695 best 0.0403119 call 0.0402939 c 0.0402872 end 0.0397944 give 0.039726 help 0.0396595 DEMAND 0.0394621 uunet 0.039426 At 0.0391236 Is 0.0389291 come 0.0387951 called 0.0386855 person 0.0386259 either 0.0384776 under 0.0384511 run 0.0382811 try 0.0381839 done 0.0381415 American 0.0380845 Mar 0.0380168 though 0.0375745 always 0.0375522 list 0.0374344 uucp 0.0373818 look 0.0372809 news 0.0370582 world 0.036948 thought 0.0367012 far 0.0366023 again 0.0365096 rec 0.0361479 available 0.0361237 seen 0.0359987 quite 0.0358661 rather 0.0358626 To 0.0358557 less 0.0357996 life 0.035651 One 0.0356385 day 0.0356341 problems 0.0353434 Aug 0.0353219 great 0.0352093 software 0.0350933 found 0.0350582 tell 0.0350006 women 0.0349558 every 0.0348759 ARPA 0.0347113 code 0.0344874 ever 0.0344022 against 0.034381 bit 0.0340132 place 0.0339821 version 0.0339734 After 0.0339507 general 0.0339356 data 0.0338289 support 0.0337402 Apple 0.033689 having 0.0336364 mean 0.0335995 above 0.0334873 heard 0.0332651 Thanks 0.0332622 doing 0.0330506 able 0.0329508 high 0.0328726 From 0.03287 next 0.0328546 state 0.0328395 change 0.0328322 G 0.0325924 book 0.0325194 Now 0.0324484 talk 0.0322513 Well 0.0322173 K 0.0321208 New 0.0320242 possible 0.0319638 please 0.031903 bad 0.0318925 Does 0.0318042 seem 0.0317838 US 0.0316672 man 0.0315538 Berkeley 0.0314951 following 0.031448 send 0.031432 example 0.0314198 several 0.0313986 isn't 0.0313922 Computer 0.0313349 reason 0.0312421 That 0.0311532 trying 0.0311282 getting 0.0309331 you're 0.0309322 true 0.0309151 feel 0.0308075 wrong 0.0307822 type 0.0307688 let 0.0307418 stuff 0.0307348 keep 0.0307083 n 0.030606 hard 0.0305048 left 0.0304981 idea 0.0304836 show 0.0302597 post 0.0302248 says 0.0300417 power 0.0300306 remember 0.0298428 looking 0.0298213 Why 0.0297855 until 0.0297768 game 0.0296652 local 0.0296428 David 0.0295771 non 0.0295262 ago 0.0294893 May 0.0293895 ll 0.029375 others 0.0292927 car 0.029129 control 0.029038 Are 0.02899 hp 0.0289235 actually 0.0288322 posting 0.0287659 Apr 0.0287615 that's 0.0287577 three 0.0285813 yet 0.028522 message 0.0283937 o 0.028303 x 0.02821 away 0.0281414 computer 0.0279189 machine 0.0278782 makes 0.0277375 interested 0.0276709 files 0.0275997 kind 0.0275608 Sep 0.0274956 large 0.0273863 sun 0.0272561 current 0.0272287 already 0.0272255 order 0.0271898 small 0.0271619 means 0.027131 times 0.0271153 government 0.0271145 Feb 0.027056 space 0.0270258 free 0.0270188 systems 0.027004 running 0.0268609 second 0.0267862 Q 0.0267502 Y 0.0267057 However 0.0265626 money 0.0264341 nothing 0.0264091 home 0.0263207 level 0.026317 music 0.0261309 CA 0.0261222 start 0.0259922 issue 0.0259509 men 0.0259428 An 0.0257596 whether 0.0256988 given 0.0256384 test 0.0256296 user 0.0256055 big 0.0255017 pretty 0.0254831 based 0.0254488 Please 0.0254409 Sun 0.025108 On 0.0250112 address 0.02489 once 0.0245928 misc 0.024423 agree 0.0243803 area 0.0243509 Systems 0.0243483 include 0.024073 write 0.0240346 mind 0.0240195 rutgers 0.0239616 comp 0.0239552 experience 0.0237895 memory 0.0237761 original 0.023775 Of 0.0236421 discussion 0.0235473 DAILY 0.0235098 Z 0.0234901 word 0.0233746 God 0.0233525 understand 0.0233237 UNIX 0.0233179 uk 0.0232473 matter 0.0232386 Not 0.02319 THE 0.0231574 during 0.0231548 play 0.0230691 won't 0.0229039 standard 0.0228981 making 0.0228475 hand 0.0227638 drive 0.0227213 days 0.0226076 copy 0.0225562 whole 0.0224829 Do 0.0223684 human 0.0223341 works 0.0223314 PC 0.0223134 Steve 0.0222846 interesting 0.0222742 System 0.0222454 Dec 0.022241 Just 0.0222242 cannot 0.0221096 Yes 0.0220791 often 0.0219997 disk 0.0219715 side 0.0219651 maybe 0.0218843 These 0.0217694 nice 0.0217505 came 0.0216901 public 0.0216871 Some 0.0216566 Mr 0.0215267 source 0.0214964 Dave 0.0214845 guess 0.0214833 HOURLY 0.021481 open 0.0214089 NOT 0.0213039 almost 0.0212906 full 0.0211414 h 0.0211371 buy 0.0210783 important 0.0210295 response 0.0209908 ask 0.0209728 return 0.0209266 simply 0.0208859 Mark 0.0207222 went 0.020682 hope 0.0205096 told 0.0204811 tried 0.0204512 wanted 0.0204181 story 0.0203864 process 0.0203381 saying 0.0203381 form 0.0203148 Another 0.0202837 p 0.0202762 love 0.0202634 couple 0.0201796 gets 0.0201692 law 0.0201686 answer 0.02015 live 0.02015 city 0.0200988 Since 0.0200476 comes 0.0200401 working 0.0199779 AND 0.0198386 goes 0.0198369 country 0.0197642 sort 0.0196894 major 0.0196694 Mike 0.0196665 per 0.0195854 haven't 0.0195711 Inc 0.0195138 everyone 0.0195008 Bell 0.0194467 cost 0.0194284 command 0.0194173 Michael 0.019367 care 0.0193345 words 0.0193068 usually 0.0193062 company 0.0192719 posted 0.0192091 Bob 0.019201 water 0.0191734 b 0.0191321 groups 0.0191059 opinions 0.0190888 Nov 0.0190597 reading 0.0190562 Actually 0.0190332 instead 0.0188966 job 0.0188771 written 0.0188364 size 0.0188091 Or 0.018805 single 0.0187963 wouldn't 0.0187445 sense 0.0187393 pay 0.0187187 value 0.0186768 programs 0.0186122 language 0.0186053 short 0.0185762 lines 0.0185733 soc 0.0184896 att 0.0184829 Then 0.0184358 questions 0.018423 San 0.0183948 Jul 0.0183291 certainly 0.0183256 Jim 0.0183183 mod 0.0182994 later 0.0182142 Anyone 0.018202 note 0.0181718 speed 0.0181697 saw 0.0181072 similar 0.0180226 week 0.0180014 character 0.017979 Can 0.0179674 light 0.0179633 Paul 0.0179496 friend 0.0179206 certain 0.0179028 difference 0.0178674 including 0.0178618 info 0.0178043 myself 0.0177531 ac 0.0177426 access 0.0177319 responses 0.0177127 hear 0.0176316 within 0.0176098 however 0.0176048 add 0.0175839 g 0.017572 Bill 0.017515 correct 0.0174676 Science 0.0174455 become 0.0173647 text 0.0172516 Center 0.0172231 top 0.0171716 asked 0.0171687 error 0.0171489 known 0.017101 IBM 0.0170568 perhaps 0.0170498 consider 0.0170323 sound 0.0170262 easy 0.0170164 price 0.0170105 started 0.0169306 especially 0.0168724 rights 0.0168666 stop 0.0168105 rest 0.0167948 everything 0.0167774 games 0.0167768 talking 0.016773 LOCAL 0.0167372 recently 0.0167268 whatever 0.0167189 particular 0.0165826 half 0.0165692 low 0.0165628 simple 0.016525 sex 0.016516 define 0.0165061 network 0.0164977 subject 0.0164953 except 0.0164122 ones 0.0163837 provide 0.0163683 class 0.0163648 fine 0.0163613 Chinese 0.0163314 check 0.0163273 woman 0.0163197 took 0.0163125 months 0.0162994 II 0.0162784 interest 0.0162758 along 0.0162587 She 0.0162287 turn 0.0162136 America 0.0161345 due 0.0161188 clear 0.016118 Amiga 0.0161177 close 0.016113 past 0.0161104 mit 0.0160898 children 0.0160636 By 0.016036 That's 0.0159325 via 0.0159165 points 0.0158676 team 0.0158641 phone 0.0158612 argument 0.0158243 various 0.0158092 result 0.015797 although 0.0157912 school 0.015783 opinion 0.0157731 worth 0.0157298 deal 0.0157051 Oh 0.015692 books 0.0156897 mode 0.0156632 service 0.0156539 Don't 0.015565 together 0.0154891 MT 0.0154745 f 0.0154452 mine 0.0154306 there's 0.0154045 night 0.0153955 tape 0.0153821 cause 0.0153423 guy 0.0153297 wasn't 0.0153074 common 0.0152972 int 0.0152966 effect 0.0152873 Jun 0.0151588 position 0.0151405 Maybe 0.0150887 series 0.0150858 head 0.0150442 r 0.0150352 likely 0.0150268 needs 0.0149916 itself 0.0149559 t 0.0149457 characters 0.0149402 situation 0.0149236 comments 0.0149233 device 0.0149064 DEDICATED 0.014896 key 0.0148826 unless 0.0148396 special 0.0148215 move 0.0148064 window 0.0147779 users 0.0147759 request 0.0147608 leave 0.0147215 allow 0.0146971 Box 0.0146759 hplabs 0.0145886 Anyway 0.0145814 yes 0.0145593 sent 0.0145575 personal 0.0145479 Software 0.0145337 aren't 0.0145322 self 0.0145288 mentioned 0.0144936 OF 0.0144851 ucbvax 0.0144514 char 0.0144479 BTW 0.0144072 Tom 0.0144011 claim 0.0143848 taken 0.0143529 Robert 0.0143511 Scott 0.0143389 record 0.0143092 future 0.0143052 function 0.0143043 takes 0.0142976 uses 0.0142412 child 0.0142174 Because 0.014197 field 0.0141633 exactly 0.0141537 longer 0.0141511 view 0.0141496 four 0.0141485 Most 0.0141325 themselves 0.0141299 Unix 0.0141284 happen 0.0141043 unix 0.0141005 expect 0.014099 Internet 0.0140516 students 0.0139656 room 0.0139621 Peter 0.0139508 w 0.0139502 changed 0.0139391 front 0.0139284 today 0.013915 rate 0.0138757 society 0.0138574 BA 0.0138502 business 0.0138374 they're 0.0138295 recent 0.0138272 With 0.0137853 movie 0.0137781 sources 0.013744 numbers 0.0137208 SPW 0.0137083 main 0.0136897 needed 0.0136586 screen 0.0136475 California 0.0136434 wrote 0.0136385 anyway 0.0136254 early 0.0136135 product 0.0136045 friends 0.0135431 ca 0.0135362 Alan 0.0135347 issues 0.0135344 performance 0.0135248 machines 0.0135207 Your 0.0135132 Research 0.0135114 board 0.0134658 lost 0.0134646 anybody 0.0134257 page 0.0134085 looks 0.0133978 amount 0.0133943 house 0.0133867 articles 0.0133739 wants 0.0133739 Who 0.013369 BSD 0.0133193 Re 0.0133097 First 0.0132847 results 0.0132634 CD 0.0132387 newsgroup 0.0132326 hit 0.0132146 wish 0.0132012 cc 0.0131695 gun 0.0131617 knows 0.0131608 root 0.0131349 market 0.013132 ST 0.0131282 statement 0.0131198 necessary 0.013116 fun 0.0131149 design 0.0130957 month 0.0130916 USA 0.0130867 thinking 0.0130817 date 0.0130692 history 0.0130538 happened 0.0130518 ALL 0.0130329 term 0.0130044 hours 0.0129991 State 0.0129922 soon 0.0129808 break 0.0129363 death 0.0129305 bitnet 0.0129189 card 0.0129157 names 0.0129102 Richard 0.012907 MA 0.0128686 lots 0.0128663 legal 0.0128613 choice 0.012861 evidence 0.0128596 minutes 0.0128404 war 0.0128401 St 0.0128285 body 0.0127921 taking 0.0127767 Even 0.0127668 ideas 0.0127564 research 0.0127471 yourself 0.0127372 Perhaps 0.0127119 release 0.0126869 involved 0.0126828 format 0.0126241 useful 0.0125947 Joe 0.0125799 server 0.0125732 Although 0.0125415 writing 0.0125363 chance 0.0125357 While 0.0125311 black 0.0125197 BERKELEY 0.0125031 he's 0.012502 assume 0.0124947 cmu 0.0124787 Dr 0.0124732 upon 0.0124552 kill 0.0124528 received 0.0124502 required 0.0124462 gov 0.0124275 playing 0.0124084 output 0.0124057 sounds 0.0123679 weeks 0.0123615 cup 0.0123226 air 0.0123171 radio 0.0123104 willing 0.0123002 couldn't 0.0122938 Mac 0.0122918 MIT 0.0122915 changes 0.0122828 near 0.0122784 film 0.0122781 complete 0.0122476 Here 0.0122365 reasons 0.0122159 played 0.0122112 vote 0.0122043 present 0.0121653 related 0.0121633 cases 0.0121609 TV 0.0121493 political 0.012092 quality 0.012072 currently 0.0120327 environment 0.0120295 string 0.0119975 learn 0.011944 paper 0.0119339 color 0.0119243 parts 0.0119173 hold 0.0119039 advance 0.0118932 postmaster 0.011892 AIDS 0.0118879 OK 0.0118871 fast 0.0118862 model 0.0118859 force 0.0118757 rules 0.0118748 China 0.0118699 hardware 0.011865 York 0.0118417 cut 0.0118301 considered 0.0117995 directory 0.0117978 object 0.0117929 Department 0.0117774 sometimes 0.0117681 difficult 0.0117513 outside 0.0117216 album 0.0117158 save 0.0116995 specific 0.0116812 completely 0.0116803 doubt 0.0116588 laws 0.0116373 DEC 0.0116071 food 0.0116059 calls 0.0116024 folks 0.0115919 total 0.0115504 usr 0.0115405 re 0.0115309 contact 0.0115239 James 0.011519 domain 0.0114972 higher 0.011496 April 0.011485 site 0.0114698 shows 0.0114666 normal 0.0114422 Andrew 0.0114419 directly 0.0114256 TO 0.0114219 white 0.0114158 among 0.0113974 coming 0.0113582 Jeff 0.0113341 English 0.011332 family 0.0113306 sci 0.0113285 religion 0.0113277 supposed 0.011321 UX 0.0113003 sys 0.0112622 solution 0.0112617 Barry 0.0112608 culture 0.011259 dead 0.0112527 development 0.0112367 reasonable 0.0112247 decwrl 0.0112224 create 0.011209 decided 0.0112076 appropriate 0.0111634 knowledge 0.0111573 behind 0.0111489 DOS 0.011066 CS 0.0110622 berkeley 0.0110387 exist 0.0110326 BBS 0.0110035 suggest 0.0110023 buffer 0.0109892 science 0.0109852 interface 0.010977 Americans 0.0109578 action 0.0109552 entire 0.0109494 below 0.0109288 Has --- En [email protected], "Roberto Bahamonde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > > Rafael: > Hace un tiempo conversábamos aquí (¿o no fue aquí?) que es > usual que las palabras maaaaaás frecuentes son las menos relevantes. > Son por ejemplo, las conjunciones o preposiciones del español, que > están a la orden del día y son meras ayudantes de tu mensaje. Si > hablas "a lo Tarzán" prescinde de ellas y con sólo pronombres, verbos, > sustantivos y adjetivos te las puedes componer para hacer que te > comprendan. Entonces, habría que filtrar las más usuales pero no tan > útiles y luego contar las restantes. > > Saludos. > Roberto. > --- En [email protected], marc ignasi corral <marcignasi@> > escribió: > > > > Es curioso esto de las frecuencias, recuerdo que en el > > IEC (Institut d'estudis catalans) se drenaron unos > > cuantos millones de palabras de libros catalanes de > > distintas disciplinas (no solo novela), y a parte de > > curiosidades como que una autora muy bien considerada > > de la literatura catalana solo usaba un total de 1500 > > palabras en toda su obra, salió una de aún más > > sorprendente, como que la palabra "telèfon" es de las > > raras en textos escritos en catalán (hablo de hace > > unos 8 años atrás, más o menos), cuando teléfono es > > una palabra muy usada en el habla. Por lo que habría > > que saber donde buscar realmente esta frecuencia de > > palabras. > > Un saludo > > Marc Ignasi > > > > --- Rafael Delpiano <delpiano@> wrote: > > > > > Sar tar vedú a todos (ése era un saludo atlante en > > > una obra de teatro que > > > hicimos una vez en el colegio): > > > > > > Con un amigo (ingeniero, igual que yo) llegamos al > > > consenso de que para > > > aprender idiomas conviene optimizar el aprendizaje > > > de vocabulario, y para > > > eso, lo mejor es tener un ránking de la frecuencia > > > de las palabras en ese > > > idioma para aprender primero las más útiles o > > > necesarias. Por supuesto que > > > el resultado dependerá del corpus que se utilice y > > > de otros factores, pero > > > nos parece un buen comienzo. > > > > > > Ahora bien, para obtener mejores resultados, es > > > razonable usar un corpus > > > más grande, y para hacerlo más rápido, usar > > > herramientas computacionales. > > > Eso trae un problema a la hora de contar palabras > > > que cambian su grafía > > > por la función gramatical (verbos conjugados, > > > sustantivos declinados, > > > etc.). A raíz de eso, iniciamos una discusión sobre > > > cómo mejorar el conteo > > > en esos casos (de tal manera que siga siendo > > > automático). > > > > > > Reproduzco aquí la discusión, porque me parece que > > > es el lugar más > > > adecuado para sacar de ella algún provecho > > > (¡cualquier acotación será muy > > > bienvenida!) > > > > > > ---- > > > Yo había pensado algo como esto: > > > > > > - de cant-ar se derivan cant-o -as -a -amos -áis -an > > > (y un largo etc.) > > > - de com-er, com-o -es -e -emos -éis -en > > > > > > Lo más fácil es decir que cualquier palabra > > > terminada en -o es un > > > potencial verbo -ar y -er conjugado: canto <-- > > > (cantar, *canter); solo <-- > > > (solar, soler); bolígrafo <-- (*bolígrafar | > > > *bolígrafer) > > > > > > Ahora, como no toda palabra -o es un verbo, mejor > > > que sólo la agrupe si el > > > corpus contiene el respectivo verbo en infinitivo > > > (eso elimina el problema > > > del canto y del bolígrafo, pero no el de "solo", de > > > hecho "solar" y > > > "soler" existen (aunque uno no sea verbo y el otro > > > no admita esa > > > conjugación); pero crea un problema cuando el > > > infinitivo no esté en el > > > corpus. A pesar de los pesares, creo que eso mejora > > > bastante el resultado. > > > > > > Luego, para casos como asir-->él ase, asar-->que yo > > > ase, lo más fácil es > > > contar la palabra dos veces. > > > > > > El caso de "como" se puede resolver contando además > > > los verbos conjugados > > > como palabras invariantes: "comiese" no va a afectar > > > la parte alta del > > > ránking, mientras que "yo como" a lo más va a inflar > > > un poco al adjetivo > > > demostrativo "como", pero no va a hacer bajar a > > > "comer" que es mucho más > > > preocupante. > > > > > > Si quisiéramos hacer algo mucho más científico, > > > habría que aplicar > > > inteligencia artificial como la del traductor de > > > google, para asegurarse > > > de que la palabra leída sea un sustantivo, verbo, > > > adjetivo, pronombre, > > > etc., pero por supuesto que eso es mucho más lento y > > > caro de programar (y > > > de todas formas se equivoca, aunque mucho menos)... > > > > > > Recibo comentarios. > > > > > > Sar tar sidé. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. > Try it > > now. > > http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ > > > Omnial a Langmaker Maig 2007 / C Fwd: Re: Omnial text and the Spanish Wikipedia (Grammar bocata) >To be honest, it's complexity makes it much _less_ useful > as an auxlang. The more I see of Omnial in your emails, the > less likely it is to fulfill the role of auxlang (unless, > like English, it is imposed via colonialism, economic > dominance and cultural ubiquity). >> 2. Fantasy >Omnial makes a fine artlang -- a work of fantasy. Exactly! The Omnial wants to be an artlang of a fantasy world (the Omnial island) but with an auxlang skin, which language is easier and useful, without losing the esthetical appearance. The Omnial is already an auxlang . at the Omnial island at its fantasy world. Conlanging is not a championship It's only a hedonist and pleasant hobby . then the Omnial can be auxlang and artlang simultaneously. >It's like English, only the complexity lies in a different >location. Omnial is trying to be simpler and then poorer that any natural language, having in its grammar only 8 points, and 8 columns in its heptalingual vocabulary, so it is easy for learning, even after the puberty when the primolingual brain organ is having several difficulty's problems with linguistic learning. >While you decry "hypersuffixation" in other >languages, here are good examples of it in Omnial. >Honestly, "-et-" and "-ix-" are not terribly useful. They >add unnecessary complexity which removes Omnial from any >sensible pretense to auxlangery and places it firmly in the >camp of the artlangs. Sorry for my poor formation and expressivity in English. I never have spoken about "decry" (Dic =Express strong disapproval of; "We condemn the racism in South Africa".) for any other language. I never have spoken and never have written using that word. I don't like it ("decry") in linguistics. I only have seen that Omnial has a different way in word building because in Omnial is possible the immediate derivation of verbs from adjectives and substantives, only with the help of context and the following three norms: a.- The ending vowel in any word has never semantic meaning. b.- The affixes of the verb are always different to the ones of the noun and the adjective. (-ete versus -ixar (pr: ishar)) c.- To form verbs from nouns and adjectives the suffixes are used only if necessary because usually the ending '-ar' is sufficient. For this reason is very easy the immediate derivation de verbs from adjectives (meaning be become , do suffix izar can be pleonastic) and the immediate derivation de verbs from substantives , meaning to product (with ifar pleonastic, the most often: "vulnerar" = "produktar vulneres"), or to use (with usar pleonastic, in a tool: martelar: usar martele), to live in (in a town or land ). All this is true, because the Omnial wants to be an artlang but without renouncing his auxlang structure ( so easy for learning). The suffix ("-ixar", pronounced the x like sh, like Catalan and Galician languages) is only for verbs, so: Martelar ---> To use a hammer Martelixar (pr: marteli"sh"ar) --> To use, smoothly, a hammer. The suffix "ete" is only for substantives and adjectives, so: Martelete ---> A little hammer ---> Marteletar --> To use a little hammer. > > 3) The infinite number of correlatives and > interrogatives > > > in Omnial: > > > ki + any name + "-al" or "-im": --> "kisizal?" , > > > "kibusim?", > > > "kimodim?" etc. >They're still tedious and numerous! (I'm not complaining: >there are a lot in my own conlangs.) "De gustibus et coloribus no es disputandum", of course But in Omnial this words are absolutely not correlatives. These words are formed only with the common rules of Omnial word building (ex: always is used for possession the suffix "-al"). They are simple, regular and very useful compound words. >> > What is "subjective gender"? Gender is assigned based >> on the speaker's mood or perception of the word? >> >> >>> Exactly! >A neat feature for an artlang; a horrific fog for an >auxlang! If a word's gender changes because the speaker >feels like it should change, then there's no place for >common understanding between users of the language -- and >_that_ is what auxlangs are all about. >> The bike of a woman (a pink bike with a basket) --- Then >> anybody can >> name it "biciklin" : ) >So, if a man has a pink bike with a basket? That sentence in Omnial is: "Un andre hava un biciklin" (if the speaker think the pink bike is more adequate for women). Or "Un andre hava un biciklul" (if the speaker think that bike is more adequate for men.) Or "Un andre hava un bicikle" (if the speaker does not want to speak about that aspect) All of this is true, because these morphemes are not obligatory morphemes. So its function is similar to the complements in our languages, since the Omnial want to be flexible and free simultaneously. Then using your words So, if a man has a woman shoe? -"biciklin" = bike for women (in opinion of speaker) woman's shoe = shoe for women (in opinion of speaker) -woman's bike or bike for women = "biciklin" (also in opinion of speaker, of course) I think all in the speech is subjective because it informs firstly about the speaker, and secondary about the reality. Here it is equal using complements (in our languages and in Omnial) or using suffix (in Omnial). You can speak about a woman's bike (pink, blue or red according your subjective opinion) and equally you can speak about a woman's shoe always according your subjective opinion. In Omnial, it is possible to use "in" or "ul". Both suffixes are used instead of the complements words like women, men, boy or girl Always, of course in a subjective way. For a speaker a bike can be a "biciklin", for other one it can be a "biciklul", and for other one this distinction is not possible. For a speaker a shoe can be "a woman's shoe", for other one it can be "a man's shoe", and for other one (shoe or speaker) this distinction is not possible. >> Only a >> little of these words have achieved an standard use at >> the island, >> like "justite" or "justone". >Still an interesting feature: gramaticalisation of various >compound temporal adverbs. That, now, is only possible at the Omnial slang, but not at the standard language. Please see here for the tense variation in Amnial-Omnial adjectives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00850.html And here for the tense variation in prepositions and adverbs: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00900.html >> When the language evolving from Amnial to Omnial it was >> simplified >> following the law denominated in the island "Law about >> the constant of >> linguistic difficulty for any language" or its inverse >> "Law of horror >> vacuii of the primolingual brain organ": with the >> evolution all the >> languages become simpler. >This "law" is flawed, and no linguist in good conscience >would ever agree with it. Please show us how Spanish >grammar is actually "simpler" than Latin! >If you have studied both, you'll soon see that Spanish is >every bit as complex as Latin -- however, its complexities >lie in other areas. English grammar might seem very simple, >when compared to older German languages, but like Spanish, >we simply have increased complexity in areas that were once >very simple. >On the surface, your two noun forms (perro / perros) seems >quite simple: one for one dog, the other for two or more; >while Latin has canis, canem, cane, canes, canum, another >canis or two and another canes. Once we realise that all of >these endings serve to show us how the word can- operates >in a sentence, we immediate look back to Spanish's perro >and ask, well, how can Spanish get by on just perro? Well, >the answer is that Spanish has replaced Latin's >_grammatical_ complexity with a new _syntactic_ complexity. >Gone is canem, but now we have al perro! (A complex >contraction of a + el (what the heck is "el"!?). Gone is >canis, in comes de los perros! Gone is canum; and in comes >de los perros! WHOA! What's this? Two de los perroses? See, >how complex Spanish really is? >And what's with ser vs. estar? Isn't esse good enough for >you!? I think the biggest problems of this double law ("Constant of linguistic difficulty for any language" or/and "Horror vacui of the primolingual brain organ") is firstly its novelty, and secondary its origin: the little and imaginary island. (I'm joking, of course :) http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00985.html But I think the morphology and syntax of Spanish is simpler as Latin because it is simpler to use a preposition than several irregular substantival declinations and that is simpler to use a conjunction than several and irregular verbal conjugations. And I think you are right, (according to the double Omnial law!), speaking: (Spanish front Latin) "its complexities lie in other areas" . "English grammar might seem very simple, when compared to older German languages, but like Spanish, we simply have increased complexity in areas that were once very simple". All of this according to "Constant of linguistic difficulty for any language" or/because " Horror vacui of the primolingual brain organ", the double linguistic theory of the little island. The languages are born very complicated in morphology and syntax (strict grammar), but simpler in semantics, lexical or phrasal, in pragmatics and in vocabulary. In our opinion the languages become, through diachronic development, very complicated in semantics, pragmatics and vocabulary, but simpler in morphology and syntax. So the languages of primitive societies (in some technological sense of primitive) are very complicated in the strict grammar (morphology and syntax). Please, see an example of Sapir de El lenguaje pag 39 (Fondo de Cultura Económica. Mexico) about one word in paiute (west Utah): Wiitokuchumpunkuruganiyugwivantum (!!!) Then, all the human languages has a equal "Constant of Linguistic Difficulty" in reason of existence of a "Horror vacui of the primolingual brain organ" because any language tends to expand until occupies all the "primolingual organ brain" like any gas tends to occupy all the container that contains it (LinguisticBoyle Mariotte Law :). You can see that the Pirahã language of Brazil having a simpler lexicon has however a very, very complicated and difficult syntax, especially in the verb morphology and syntax. Then the "linguistic difficulty" of Pirahã is for us equal to the "linguistic difficulty" of any other isolate language because of the linguistic difficulty of any human language. It is equal, so it's a constant. All of this is true, of course, only in learning any language from an equal "linguodistance". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language#Verbs This double theory was expressed some time ago in Ideolengua: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00902.html http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00985.html And it is becoming more completed in: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa? A2=ind0701a&L=ideolengua&D=1&F=&S=&P\ =91 >And what's with ser vs. estar? Isn't esse good enough for you!? That difference ("ser" versus "estar") is very easy to understand if you learn Spanish or Catalan before the puberty. So it is more difficult to learn Spanish after the puberty. That is equal for all the languages because its difficulty increases very much if it is learned after the puberty. >To be frank, most of the trepidation regarding auxlanging >is due to its incessant politicking. Artlangers continually >celebrate each others' work and encourage each other in >their persuit of the perfect conlang. >On the other hand, auxlangers come to the table with the >perfect auxlang in hand and harangue each other with why >any given one is the best and should be adopted by the UN, >etc, and how all the other auxlangs ever invented are >perfect examples of mental diahrrea and should all be >flushed down the nearest allegorical commode. I think the perfect language, or a perfect language, is not able to be built by anybody. Because if the art is not measurable, then it is not objectively "agreeable". There is not a championship because here, there is not a cup. But also it is truth that for people with great linguistic capacity one auxlang always will seem some infantile, like to a great gourmet fast food (easy to prepare) will always seem bad food: http://omnial.tripod.com/textes The Omnial grammar was named Grammar Bocata (grammatical sandwich) because it want be fast and easy but not bad food. It, certainly not a spacecraft, was not designed by an astronaut but by a cook because an auxlang structure likes to be designed by "an artisan and a craftsman, rather than an engineer" ( :). Nevertheless, important linguists like Sapir, Jespersen, Saussure, Martinet, even Umberto Eco has not displeased the auxilang structures. Omnial tries to demonstrate that the fast or easy food not always is bad food. Also our great cook Ferran Adrià tries to demonstrate that in some occasions the fast food is eaten worthy and also our architect, Calatrava (Chicago Spire, The Freedom Tower), has demonstrate that the minimalist architecture can be worthy and pleasant. >> * 5.5 Pedagogical data: With the puberty the difficulty >> of the language learning increases extraordinarily because >> sclerosis of the >> primolingual brain organ located in left hemi-brain at >> the right-handed people. >I've often heard this kind of thing, but have never bought >it. Some people apparently have no great issues learning a >second or a third or a tenth language. >Other people can barely learn their mother tongue. Some >people are horrible at maths, others can't draw a straight >line with a ruler and a pencil, others can't sing a note. >Point is, everyone has their gifts, and languages are the >gifts of some. Perhaps we aren't so sclerosed! My mother (and father) tongue is Catalan. I have learned Spanish before my puberty (so using the neurones of my primolingual brain organ only in one brain hemisphere) and I have learned English after the puberty, (with my primolingual brain organ already sclerosed. That's why for lerning English (after the puberty) I have used the more versatile but also more incompetent (in linguistic) brain neurones (in both cerebral sides). In reason of that our (="tumial", not "nosal") auxiliary language or lingua franca can be a language common: English or Spanish. But for me, with Catalan as my mother tongue, the English is pospubertal and the Spanish is prepuberal. So, it will be always more easy to use the Spanish like lingua franca with you. I will need many years of effort for equally my English level to my Spanish level because my primolingual organ is sclerosed and my other brain neurones are less efficient in learning languages. But the attainable level in a language of postpuberal learning (using few efficient neurones) never would be equal to the attainable level in a language of prepuberal learning (using the more efficient primolingual neurones). French or German can be neutral Lingua Franca for you and for me only if both languages have been learned for you and for me before (in both cases) or after (in both cases) our own puberty: But that increase of the learning difficulty after the puberty only happens in the language, because habitually after the puberty it is more easy to learn mathematics, medicine, to draw, to sing, to drive... To learn any activity is easier after the puberty but learning a language is more difficult after the puberty and very easy before it. In our opinion it is justified by the existence of the brain organ of the language (Chomsky) and because the double Omnial theory about "Constant of linguistic difficulty for any language" and "Horror vacui of the primolingual brain organ" it is quite true. Our double Omnial theory maintains that any language tends to expand itself until occupies all the capacity of the primolingual brain organ, like a gas tends to expands itself until it occupies completely the container that contains it. >Does it have sounds that correspond, [w], [q], [ks]? If >not, then don't lament the lack! In the old Amnial or protoOmnial: [ q ] The digraph "kh" was used for that sound. [ w] For that sound it was used the letter "u" , [ x ] The digraph "sh" was used in Amnial for that sound. > > 3 Personal Pronouns The Amnial distinguishes "it" for >> things and "ol" > > for animals but in Omnial only "it" is used. >This sort of dinstinction is actually quite handy. I read a >novel once the author of which had coined a new set of >pronouns for non-gender-specified beings (i.e., epicene >gender). >A distinction between "animal it" and "inanimate it" would >not be a bad thing. In a living language as the Omnial it is always possible to an archaism to take life and become to be neologism... >> c) Subjunctive and imperative with tense variation: > >> *sif mi dromitus = " if I had run " >> *non dormonek!" = "que no os vayais a dormir!' >Nothing to write home about there! All are pretty normal >features (of familiar IE / Romance / Germanic langauges). The Omnial obtains it by a simple and euphonic form, alternating the sounds "t" and "n" of tense variation, with the "us" and "ek" of mode variation: > "sif mi dromitus" = " if I had run " > "non dormonek!" = "don't sleep now"que no os vayais a dormir!' >> 6 Qualifiers : The proto-omnial or Amnial distinguishes >> between the >> endings in "-al" (posesive) and "-el" (genitive), as it >> was said here >> in a message about the differences between >> "adjectivation" and >> "genitivation" and also between "adverbation" and >> "ablativation" . >I recall. Latin combines the two (genitive of possession, >genitive of material or something like that). A language >can distinguish any number of things like that. That is an aspect of the diachronic evolution of the language from Amnial to Omnial >>7 Numbers. >> >> Firstly, in Amnial, it was used the Latin roots, and >> after, in Omnial, >> they were replaced for the Greek ones in the first nine >> numbers. >Why? I don't know for sure the reason... (Latin roots are more polymorphic and irregular??) But possibly with its changes, the language, happened to be more original within conlanging, but equally comprehensible (or not less comprehensible) and euphonic. >A hexe is a kind of painted talisman, found commonly in > Pennsylvania and parts of Maryland and Ohio. I'm not sure > how "international" hexes are, though I'm sure talismanic > magic is common enough around the world. Thanks for the humor, but I can speak about other examples: A "home" in Catalan language is a man, so "ZARA HOME" which is a shop of textile items for home in English, can seem a shop of textile men's items in Catalan. The false friend is often in learning any language but it is easier that the Omnial word "hexa" the English words hegagon, hexose, hexabasic, hexaschord, hexaemeron, hexameter, hexamine and more a not remind the English word "hexe" . >> Euphony is overrated -- it's not necessary for a compound >> to "sound good" for it to work. It's an excess in an >> auxlang, but another example of how Omnial really isn't >> one. Those 3 simple rules avoid doubts in the Omnial word building: "cosmenaue" or "cosmnaue" ? "vaporenauer" or "vapornauer" ? The first letter of naue (ship) is a consonant, do ---> "cosmonaue" and "vapornauer" are correct in Omnial: That euphonic Omnial word building is very easy, having only 3 norms about euphony: 1.- When the suffix (or the suffixed word), finishes in 'a', 'e' or 'o' (open vowels), this open vowel will disappear, only then it is `i' or `u' (closed vowels) this ending vowel remains: -- `fratal' and `tetriple', from `frate' and `tetra'. -- `mial' and `duesme', from `mi' and `du'. 2.- When the suffix (or the sufixed word), begins with a consonant, the vowel 'o' is added before it (euphonic epenthesis). 'semanofine' from `fine' and `semane' 3.- At both cases, if an infinitive is prefixed, is deleted the `ar' morpheme. 'ideolingue' from `idear' and `lingue' >>b)In Amnial "ie" is the suffix for quality and place, >> but "-eze", is >> more common in Omnial for meaning quality. >Descendant form, or from some other, possibly not >surviving, Amnial suffix? It's an archaic suffix from Amnial. It's surviving in some technical Omnial words. >> c) The morpheme "n" is used in prepositions of place for >> meaning direction: >> "Le cate saltit supran le sidil" >How? What's wrong with plain "supra"? Or does it >disambiguate, if for example supra- were to be nouned or >verbed? With "supra" (here = on) the phrase means: "The cat is jumping on the chair". With "supran" (to + supra : direction + place): "The cat is jumping to+on the chair". All of this, because the place prepositions have two possible morphologic variations in Omnial by means of two suffixes: "-n" or "en" for meaning direction "-ake" for meaning contact: "apudake" , "frontake" (whit contact) >Those being set phrases, even in English. If you said "El >hombre cantavit de su amor a su ameur", then you'd have >some interesting transtemporal and crosscultural archaisms! To use Latin phrases in Omnial is not an archaism: That would be an exotic and surprising linguistic use. In Omnial the only possible archaism it's to use the old Amnial morphemes. >Could be -- a lot would depend on how familiar Omnial >speakers are with Amnial and how pervasive it is in their >culture. If mountains of great (and living) literature were >written in Amnial, then its influence would be strong. We >see this in English with the literature of Shakespeare and >the Bible -- the language of both continue to influence us >even today. In Amnial language only it's conserved the ancient Constitutional Act of the little island... The literature does not abound in Amnial, not in Omnial, because everyone prefers to use his own language. The education of the Omnial only is done after the puberty of the students. For that reason, nobody can have it as a maternal language, because its function is only auxlang....at the little island. >You'd be amazed at the variety of musics that can be >adapted to other styles. Every day I am being surprised more and more and more... continuously and all that is uploaded to the Omnial website. :) >OK. If you have some Beatles content on your Omnial website >that isn't elsewhere, I guess that's OK. I'm not >understanding why I should find this impressive, though. >How does that make Omnial more special than another >language? I think that (the information in Omnial about the Beatles) is not impressive. Next weeks we are adding comments in Omnial about that music. That doesn't make Omnial more special than another language. But I think the Omnial and the information about the Beatles cover versions (only available in the Omnial home page) makes this home page a few different and special. With regards, Job PS In summary, the Omnial being artlang has also an auxlang skin, trying to obtain its own personality within conlanging, with its own internal logic, by means of several points: 1- Clear diachronic evolution from Amnial to Omnial with newer slang formation. 2- New and different word building system in Omnial. 3- Infinite number of correlatives and interrogatives but with quite regular building. 4- Regular but not monotonous accentuation. 5- Regular pronunciation of the acronyms and initialisms. 6- The names of the letters, used for spelling, are ordinary words. 7- Subjective gender ("biciklin"). 8- Forming the plural (-s/-es) and the gender (-in/-ul ) in the pronouns quite equal to the substantives, 9- Pronominal addition("mitual strate es le plus bele de nosal urbe "), 10- The adjectivation of the plural ("ilesal") of some pronouns is possible in Omnial 11- Gerund in "im" as in the derived adverbs. 12- Easy combination of imperative and conditional with the tense morphemes : "If mi habitus penta numismes " 13- Use of the same suffix "-al" as possessive in the sustantives, equal in pronouns, and also equal in the correlatives. 14- Inequality comparative with "aniso" (like the scientific words as "anisocitosis" and anisocoriosis" 15- Tense variation in prepositions and adverbs (usually in slang). 16- Greek roots for the numbers, known in the technical and scientific vocabulary. (hexagon for example) 17- Inclusion of the most frequent (only these) scientific roots in the Omnial vocabulary. 18- Omnial lacks proper names except Omnial ("lingue") . 19- It has some suffix for the prepositions: -ake, -n/-en 20- Easy rules for euphony in the word formation, adding the "o" between both roots (euphonic epenthesis) like in the scientific vocabulary: idear + lingue --> ideolingue; artre + skopiar --> artroskopiar. The diachronic evolution from Amnial to Omnial is clear after observing the 8 grammatical points: (Amnial and Omnial -->@mnial ?) 1 Alphabet and pronunciation: The Amnial lacked the letters w, q, x, and all the words had the accent before the last consonant. 2 Noun: The gender was made with "a", "o", and "e" . 3 Personal Pronouns: The Amnial distinguishes "it" for things and "ol" for animals. 4 Verb with tense variation in all adjectives derived, also in subjunctive and imperative modes. Perfective morpheme "-ab-"+(it/on). 5 Specifiers: Amnial distinguishes between the interrogatives with "ki-" (kial) and the relatives with "ku-" (kual). 6 Qualifiers: The proto-omnial or Amnial distinguishes between the endings in "-al" (posesive) and "-el" (genitive) . 7 Numbers: Amnial use the Latin roots, but Omnial prefer the Greek roots. 8 Vocabulary Expansion: .Amnial, without euphonic rules, prefer "ie" to "-eze" for meaning "abstract quality". -------------------------------------------------------------------- IdeoLengua - Lista de Lingüistica e Idiomas Artificiales Suscríbase en [EMAIL PROTECTED] Informacion en http://ideolengua.cjb.net Desglose temático http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ideolengua/files/Administracion/top-ideol.html Enlaces a Yahoo! Grupos <*> Para visitar tu grupo en la web, ve a: http://espanol.groups.yahoo.com/group/ideolengua/ <*> La configuración de tu correo: Mensajes individuales | Tradicional <*> Para modificar la configuración desde la Web, visita: http://espanol.groups.yahoo.com/group/ideolengua/join (ID de Yahoo! obligatoria) <*> Para modificar la configuración mediante el correo: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Para cancelar tu suscripción en este grupo, envía un mensaje en blanco a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> El uso que hagas de Yahoo! Grupos está sujeto a las Condiciones del servicio de Yahoo!: http://e1.docs.yahoo.com/info/utos.html
