Hola
Esta lista de frecuencias de uso es maja, en pedeefe, y sobre el Inglés: http://web1.d25.k12.id.us/home/curriculum/fuw.pdf Y esta otra sobre el Chino, de no magro futuro: http://www.chinasprout.com/html/most_fequently_used_words_1.html Donde al parecer han seguido un proceso más ingenioso es en los Wikitionarys: Consiste en extraer de deuvedes los subtítulos de películas y contabilizar después las palabras informáticamente. Las mil más frecuentes del Español serían estas: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists/Spanish1000 Ahí hay gran cantidad de información en una docena, corta, de idiomas, con utilidad ideolingüal obvia: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists Si alguien se anima a sacar subtítulos de deuvedes en formato text, un programa muy util para ello es Subrip, en cualquiera de sus versiones, que fue el que se usó en su día para extraer los subtítulos de El Señor de los Anillos y de la entrevista a Tolkien en National Geographic, para reintroducirlos después ya traducidos a la xantolengua. Así fue como Tolkien habló del Omnial sin haberlo podido conocer: mediante doblado y subtitulado ictérico (o subtitulación flávica). ¿Quien se anima a sacar subtítulos y estadística en Euskera, Català u otra mediante este método?. Igual es mejor solución el ensamblaje de un bot recorriendo y estadistisqueando determinado dominio wikal. Saludos cordiales. Job --- En [email protected], marc ignasi corral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > > No se como conseguir dicho listado pues he perdido > contacto con la persona que me lo contó y no creo que > esté colgado en internet. De todas formas ese listado > de 1500 palabras al que hacía referencia no era de > frecuencias de palabras sinó del vocabulario completo > que una escritora habías usado en la totalidad de su > obra. > Saludos > Marc Ignasi > --- JoB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > === message truncated === > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html > Omnial a Langmaker ----> Grammar Bocata D Hello Padraic >--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Padraic Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > --- JoB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think Omnial has a different way in word building of conlanging >> because in Omnial is possible the immediate derivation of >> verbs from >> adjectives and substantives, > Honestly, this is a fairly common method of word building. > As I said, we do it in English regularly and frequently. The Omnial use some theories of philosophy of the language (Spengler, Echeverría etc) and examples of the English and also of other languages, for verbalize directly from noun and adjective: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa? A2=ind0701a&L=ideolengua&D=1&F=&S=&P=91 This mechanism is quite regular but without using unnecessary suffixes because it uses its own procedure, with the already exposed three rules of the Omnial vocabulary expansion: 1.- The ending vowel in any word never has semantic meaning. 2.- The affixes of the verb are always different to the ones of the noun and the adjective. 3.- To form verbs from nouns the suffixes are used only if necessary because usually the ending '-ar' is sufficient. > Presumably, I can also marteletixar as well: a most > instructive and excellent treatise on hypersuffixation in > Omnial! You proved my point admirably. I think that example is not about hypersuffixation because in Omnial almost always the use of suffix is optional and not obligatory. Neither is here multisuffixation because with only two suffixes for the verb, and other two for the noun, we can reach varied meanings. You learned to use these four Omnial suffixes in a combination form without previous explanation of their mechanism. Then "marteletixar" is to use smoothly a little hammer and "brosotixar" is to use smoothly a "brosote", that is a big brush. That demonstrates that the using of them (et + ixar or ot + ixar) is very easy in Omnial language. > Confusion is the bane of an auxlang. >. If you come out of a shop on a busy > street on Omnial Island and hail a gendarme asking him > "where's my biciklin?" And he'll look at you, sigh, and say > "You're bicikul is tied up over there..." > That's just my opinion on "subjective gender". I think confusion is the bane of any language, and also for that with an auxlang appearance, but there is not confusion speaking about "a woman hat" and also there is not confusion speaking about a "biciklin", that is "a woman bike". Subjective gender is common in Spanish, not only in slang, without any confusion: "pero" (fruit) and "pera", but probably the "lexicovision" from Maryland is different to "lexicovision" from Alicante :) > > >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! > > > [snip] > [Spanish v. Latin complexity] > That's what _you_ say. But then again, _you_ speak Spanish > and had to learn Latin! ;) > I had no difficulty in switching to an inflected language. > Even then, Latin isn't a _pure_ infelcting language > My question addresses the _increasing_ complexity of > Spanish over Latin, while you had said "But I think the > morphology and syntax of Spanish is simpler as Latin..." I think is easier to use a preposition than using several declinations with several irregular morphemes. Examples: Amicum motus rosa vincit Amicus vincit consulum amici Cornu rosae vincit consul Vencit dies rosam consulis Mare diei cornu vencit We can see that the using of the only preposition (English "of" or Spanish "de") is replaced here by several morphemes (-us, ae, is, ei) and for a correct use of those morphemes it is necessary to make multiple groups of different nouns, each one with a different mechanism of word building. > We don't agree on that. The more of Omnial I see, the less > I can see it as any kind of auxlang. > I think that is a highly implausible story -- the auxlang > bit. Usually when an auxlang is found needful, the results > are "simple" languages, like pigins; Omnial is nowhere near > that kind of simplicity! > Omnial is by no means "simpler than" or "poorer than". It > has complexities which as we've discussed do _not_ mimic > the supposed simplicity of auxlangs. > it wouldn't take long to realise that Omnial is the > simplest language a postpubertal language learner can > tackle! I think having in its grammar only 8 points, the whole Omnial grammar is simpler than the conjugation of only one non regular verb in many languages. Because of the horror vacui, all grammars tend to expands themselves until they occupy completely their container, the "primolingual organ brain", (Linguistic Boyle Mariotte Law:) and that's why all pidgin transforms into a creole. To avoid this transformation in the microinsule, the learning of Omnial only is possible after the puberty, avoiding the transformation of the pidgin Omnial into a creole Omnial. And they force them to use firstly their natural mother languages. For that reason there are not Omnial eubilingual people, but only Omnial bilingualoid pupils. > And they swing back and forth. Languages change. > Thus you can see a language whose semantics and > vocabulary have become complex, does _not_ necessarily have > a simpler morphology or syntax. > Not always; and there are many languages of modern > societies that are equally complex (Spanish for example). > Spain is a first world country, yet it has an amazingly > complex verbal system, full of all kinds of tenses and > persons that English's very simple verb system lacks. But I think the change happens always according to the double Omnial theory ("Constant of linguistic difficulty for any language" and "Horror vacui of the primolingual brain organ") all the languages always change to become other languages more complicated in semantics, pragmatics and vocabulary, and simpler in morphology and syntax. We hope, in the near future, to demonstrate that (after knowing the measure mode) and then this double Omnial theory will becomes a new linguistic law. :) >> So the languages of primitive societies (in some >> technological sense >> of primitive) are very complicated in the strict grammar >> (morphology >> and syntax). > Not always; and there are many languages of modern > societies that are equally complex (Spanish for example). > Spain is a first world country, yet it has an amazingly > complex verbal system, full of all kinds of tenses and > persons that English's very simple verb system lacks. But it happens that the majority of the Spanish verbal morphemes are not used nowadays, but they are learned in the school. The learning of this complex verbal system is useful to understand the texts of the past. The education, the normative grammar and the Linguistic Academy, restrain the "normal" evolution of all the languages, according to the double Omnial theory. > I'm sorry to hear your organs are sclerosed. :( I think > there must be folks who are not so incapacitated. That is only a physiological process and for that reason it is not a pathologic problem. I would like to have the capacity of language learning of a boy, but that is not possible now and here. Perhaps, any day in the future, people will discover a medicine, (like the statins in arteriosclerosis but now against the sclerosis of primolingual brain organ), that is able to give back to the adults the capacity of learning languages that all the children always have. I hope that that "antiesclerosal" medicine does not have too many injurious indirect effects. :) > And indeed, is carried over into Spanish's ubiquitious > "de", the black hole into which Latin's genitive and > ablative fell! ;) > How so? An English speaker visiting Spain would assume, > upon seeing "Zara Home", that it is something in Catalan or > Spanish, not English! No problem. All weekends I see many English speakers buying diverse textile items at the Zara shops, without any kind of problem (at Zara home, Zara men, and Zara women Zarin and Zarul at the little island. I hope! > Mind you, I'm not complaining about it as a feature of a > conlang! The Omnial tries to be easier to pronounce for all (in the island) by means of its rules of euphony. > Even the way you continually repeat everything you've said > before many times is a common auxlangy trait! Honestly, I > don't need to read the same exact explanation every time we > chat! :) Sorry, but it happens that when we are having several phrases translated to English, we used them too many times by a mechanism of linguistic economy because now my sister is more interested in the subjects of the Wiki, and she doesen't seem arranged to help me. You know, I'm only a bilingualoid student of English (postpuberal), and lamentably I'm not a prepuberal , so eubilingual, pupil. All the best for you and family, and like always, here rest a friend. Job -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
