Print

Print


Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:
 
> >(Easton? I can find no mention of such person in any of my books,
> >nor on the web. Please assist me, somebody.)
>
> Helen Eaton worked for IALA, and researched to determine the 8000 most used
> concepts (not words) in 4 European languages: English, German, French,
> Spanish.  IALA apparently published her results in 1938; it is work that
> had not been done before nor to my knowledge has anything comparable been
> done since.  Wordlists not being typical best sellers, and Eaton's list
> being based on the language usage of the 20s (no techno-terminology in it
> to speak of %^), it went out of print ages ago.
 
WordNet:
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/
 
EuroWordNet: <------------------------- BEST
http://www.hum.uva.nl/~ewn/
 
Word lists of all sorts:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/bck1/menu.html
 
> James Cooke Brown used Eaton's list as a primary criterion for which words
> should be roots in Loglan based on word frequency, modified by a couple of
> other lists that stressed semantic primitiveness.
 
English word frequency:
http://www.itri.brighton.ac.uk/~Adam.Kilgarriff/bnc-readme.html
 
Parsed dictionaries:
http://www.isi.edu/natural-language/dpp/resources/
 
Semantic relations:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/util/new/FSN_DOC.ASC
 
More MICRA and Roget:
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/ROGET.html
 
(Glosa basic vocab is relexed Roget.)
 
Historical Thesaurus:
http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/EngLang/thesaur/homepage.htm
 
Natural Language Software:
http://www.dfki.de/lt/registry/
 
> The book had enough usefulness that sometime in the 60s or 70s, Dover
> Publications brought it back into print in one of its quality paperback
> editions, but it did not stay on the market indefinitely.  I have never
> actually seen a Dover copy; I suspect that the people who bought them did
> so with no intent on getting rid of them.
 
It's intended mainly for language teachers.
 
> But JCB made Xerox copies of the
> Dover book, and distributed them to people who were doing Loglan vocabulary
> work in the 80s, because his goal then was to fill out the language lexicon
> to cover the full Eaton list.  I have collected two or three of these
> copies from Loglanists who have sent me their accumulated stuff, and at
> some time we will produce a Lojban lexicon covering all of Eaton.
 
To fill out, maybe a good idea. To serve as a basis?? No way.
 
> >I had guessed Thorndike, a more reasonable choice, but no.
>
> Never heard of it; it certain is not the same thing as Eaton's work.
 
He wrote an introduction to her book, and she reportedly used
his work to generate the English list. He is quite well-known.
 
> >Maybe, but English moves faster than that ...
>
> I doubt it.  Other languages borrow heavily from English, but not that
> much.  And British and American English still have a way to go before they
> coalesce.
 
I think we disagree here. I see no significant difference between
the two; anyway I meant the march of English as a world language.
There are hundreds of varieties, maybe hundreds of millions of speakers.
But these are pidginized varieties, like Hindu-English, which are
barely or not at all inter-comprehensible.
 
> >No, contrarily. All you need is English OR French OR ...
> >My method is this: I need an international word for rock or stone.
> >I think "xxhmmxxtion, stonifixx, petrification, petre!"
>
> Why would the naive American think that "stone" or "rock" is not itself an
> international word?  In which case Occidental will look remarkably like
> English (as in identical).
 
Needs to have a -tion on it to be international.
Do you often say "stonation"?
 
> I'm sure I know a lot of international words.  I just don't know which
> words are NOT international words.
 
But now you do.
 
> >Take a random sample of text from any newspaper, grab the -tion, -al,
> >and -ive words. What do you see? These words are international already.
>
> Those words are Latinate words.  They may be international among the
> Romance speakers; I know they are not necessarily so among Germans, much
> less Russians.
 
They are the right ones: English-Latinate.
 
> Being specific as to sources and crediting the languages sounds like a good
> way to promote scorecarding and either increased jealousy among factions or
> quota systems for ensuring "fairness".
 
Hmm. I much prefer it to the alternative, though.
In science, one must do these things; IA claimed to be scientific.
 
> >IA was a dream-fantasy-invention of one man. If you like it,
> >OK. It was not what it claimed to be, however.
>
> Is anything?
 
Too cynical! People aren't all that bad.
 
>  >The naturalistic ones can operate just byusing them on innocent people.
>
> Oft claimed, but even a not so innocent like me gets nothing out of them.
 
I guess one size does not fit all. Maybe I can only talk
with half the people in Europe, what a shame.
 
> >Ples ne tentar me a postar solmen in Occidental,
>
> Please don't tempt me to post solely in Occidental (or is that solemnly?)
 
You got it! (sole-ly)
 
> >yo es devenent tant confortabil in it, it estro enjoyabil,
>
> I am a deviant aunt comfortable in it, it ovulates enjoyably.
 
Sorry, a typo, my keyboard is dropping spaces and k's.
"it ES TRO enjoyabil". Also, I guessed at deven.. for "becoming".
How about "tre confortabil"?
I am afraid I *can* get you to understand it.
 
> >yo mey forjetar Angles!
>
> I may forget English.
 
Yup.
 
>  >It es plu facil, ne un mentir.
>
> It is more facil not a mental.
 
How facile is mendacity? Hmm. How about "ne un mentire"?
 
> >Ma Occ es plu facil por Americanes
> >porque it usa li analytic verbal conjugation.
>
> Especially when you use unmodified English words for half the sentence.
 
These are among the highest frequency words:
ma, es, plu, por, it, usa, li
 
There is no other way to say "analytic verbal conjugation"
that I can imagine. You could swap their order, no difference.
 
I'm not cheating. I'm not even trying hard. I got fluency
at this sloppy level in one weekend, and I'm much worse than
you are at learning languages.
 
Well, that's what these naturalistic eurolangs are good for.
 
> >On posse far to hodie, descovrir li international lingue de Europa.
>
> A posse far too (howdie?), discovered the international language of Europe.
 
ho-die, ti die, ti-ci die? I didn't say "nu = now" because
you might think it was cheating. "posse" is very high frequency,
so in writing to an american I would say once, "posse = can".
 
> {Sorry Charles, but if you respond to me in Euroclone, I really won't have
> any idea what you are saying.  If I tried to respond to you likewise, it
> would be even worse.  I'll spare everyone.)
 
I wrote without tailoring it to your case, and you still
had trouble garbling it. I think everybody else can see
how useful this really is.