A list of so-called "most frequent words" is never absolute,
but may help us, when we make a dictionary, not to forget
some useful words, not all of them however.



On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 08:26:45 -0800, Donald J. HARLOW 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Je 08.14 atm 2007.01.01, Jacques DEHEE skribis
>>In answer to Don, even while eating we use spoon and fork
>>without necessarily mentioning their names.
>But their names _are_ mentioned, on a regular basis -- just not on a
>_frequent_ basis. I am simply pointing out that the concept of the
>"most frequent 1000 (or 2000 or 3000) words", if misused, can be a
>snare and a delusion.
>Incidentally, the long-time popular "The Concise Dictionary of 26
>Languages", which also goes with the 1000-word thing, matches your
>list, in the first ten words (also alphabetically ordered), for
>exactly two words. Of course, the "Concise Dictionary" has a tendency
>to emphasize nouns rather than particles or even verbs, and this sort
>of thing is going to introduce an off-frequency bias.
>-- Don HARLOW
>Opinions (in English):
>Esperanto (in English):
>Literaturo (Esperante):