|
Post by Niklianos on Jan 20, 2008 18:20:56 GMT -5
Albhoney,
are you trying to say that they are counting Lexemes? If so you need to read what they say very carefully!
From your own post:
"Ms Pantelia makes it clear here:
These are *not* distinct lexemes, since our word index is not lemmatised."
So the 1.2 million words are NOT Lexemes but DISTINCT words. So there is no "gone, went, goes", etc.
So in the end there are 1.2 million DISTINCT words not based on Lexemes in the Greek language which OUTNUMBERS any other language INCLUDING English.
Luv Ya!
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Jan 20, 2008 22:24:15 GMT -5
Albhoney, are you trying to say that they are counting Lexemes? If so you need to read what they say very carefully! From your own post: "Ms Pantelia makes it clear here: These are *not* distinct lexemes, since our word index is not lemmatised." So the 1.2 million words are NOT Lexemes but DISTINCT words. So there is no "gone, went, goes", etc. So in the end there are 1.2 million DISTINCT words not based on Lexemes in the Greek language which OUTNUMBERS any other language INCLUDING English. Luv Ya! For a people who come from a tradition of reason both you and Slow really blow when it comes to understanding English. Ms. Pantelia said " These are *NOT DISTINCT lexemes. " Which means these are not "different" root words, core fundamental unit of Greek words. Which means the library is counting 5, 10, 25 variations of the same core Greek word. Therefore, the library is counting the same core word-lexeme many times over. Which means you guys have a long way to go to create 1.2 million distinct lexemes. "So in the end there are 1.2 million DISTINCT words not based on Lexemes in the Greek language which OUTNUMBERS any other language INCLUDING English." If this wasn't so funny I think I might feel sorry for you Niklianos. In fact, from your statement, one can also infer that adding an 'S' will make a Greek word different. From your statement, they may be also counting Greek core words found in English and other languages..lol Sorry, but you can't cook up something that's not there especially when the director clearly states that 1.2 million words are not distinct lexemes. This means they are in fact perhaps 100's of versions of the same word. lolol
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Jan 20, 2008 22:37:20 GMT -5
So, this is overall a study that is hard to comprehend what they are counting. Not to add here that fact that they may have mixed all up: the Homeric Greek, the Classic Greek and the modern Greek! How confusing
|
|
|
Post by ILIRI I MADH on Jan 21, 2008 1:35:09 GMT -5
========
Trolling
========
|
|
|
Post by slowdent on Jan 21, 2008 11:35:03 GMT -5
These are *not* distinct lexemes, since our word index is not lemmatised.
lex•eme (lksm)
noun. The fundamental unit of the lexicon of a language. Find, finds, found, and finding are forms of the English lexeme find.
albhoney.
just admit it. you ve been had with your own postings........
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Jan 21, 2008 13:23:21 GMT -5
These are * not* distinct lexemes, since our word index is not lemmatised. lex•eme (lksm)
noun. The fundamental unit of the lexicon of a language. Find, finds, found, and finding are forms of the English lexeme find.albhoney. just admit it. you ve been had with your own postings........ "Find, finds, found, and finding are forms of the English lexeme find" This is correct slow, but you notice it doesn't say 'distinct' or 'different' forms of the lexeme Find. Therefore, you can count only Find in your list of words in the English language. According to ms. pantelia, she said..here I go for the 31165165161 time, "These are *not* distinct lexemes, since our word index is not lemmatised." The tlg library consists of many repeated lexemes in their texts. This is the last time I answer M.T. headed fools like you slow.
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Jan 21, 2008 22:31:23 GMT -5
WOW you are actually correct for once Honey! So are we now? You 1 me 28?
|
|
|
Post by BibleRiot on Jan 22, 2008 18:37:07 GMT -5
Many moons ago, on the old forum, the debate raged about one aspect of this thread, namely the link between the Greek alphabet as we know it, and earlier inscriptions, including one example dating back to the Mesolithic. A rather silly article in Davlos magazine had claimed that Adamantios Sampson, the very distinguished Greek archaeologist who excavated the Cave of the Cyclops on Youra, had been quoted as saying that the symbols were a very early form of an alphabetic Greek script. The Davlos article also brought into play the Dispilio tablet to support this theory of a very early set of symbols having a direct connection with the much later script used in Greece from the 8th century BC onwards. To illustrate the unreliability of the Davlos article I wrote to Dr Sampson and he was kind enough to reply. You can read his answer here: p071.ezboard.com/fbalkansfrm188.showMessage?topicID=422.topicAs you can seefromthe above, the Dispilio tablet may be related to the inscriptions found at Youra – but if so then, like that material, it is not a Greek script in the sense that we usually understand the term. There are powerful reasons for believing that the script so wonderfully and originally used by the Greeks, from the 8th century BC onwards, to write poetry, jokes and pornography, was derived from the Phoenician abjab . That remains the overwhelming scholarly consensus – a couple of hours research will show you why. Davlos is regrettably not a reliable source in debates of this kind. A good example of the kind of unscholarly usage it indulges in is the citation from Lefkowitz. One might think, from this quotation, that Lefkowitz, another distinguished scholar, believes that it is a misrepresentation to claim Phoenician roots for the Greek alphabet. Nothing could be further from the truth. She holds to the conventional view. It's a great pity, really, that the very interesting discussion in this thread on why modern computer scientists find Greek such a powerful language for their purposes has been diverted up a historical blind alley cluttered with nationalistic nonsense. It seems there really is something about Greek syntax and grammar that lends itself to very precise description, more so than other languages, including Mandarin and English. But I'm still not sure how and why.
|
|
rex362
Senior Moderator
Pellazg
PELASGIANILLYROALBANIAN
Posts: 19,058
|
Post by rex362 on Jan 22, 2008 18:55:26 GMT -5
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,589
|
Post by Kanaris on Jan 22, 2008 19:27:34 GMT -5
My Greek reading sucks..so does Bibles.... and I am sure yours does too..
There's one more thing I find intriguing, is that in the Greek alphabet, you could spell out every letter...
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Jan 25, 2008 23:14:30 GMT -5
WOW you are actually correct for once Honey! So are we now? You 1 me 28? pfft...you wish!!
|
|