Byrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cladking Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Obviously the eight words that comprise
> > programming language and which breaks Zipf's
> Law
>
> ...(programmer speaking)... and you know this HOW?
> And where are you getting those "eight words"
> from? And which programming language are we
> talking about? If you're talking about machine
> language, you are quite incorrect. I know this
> because I've had to read core dump.

I don't know. I guess it must be machine language. I speak to a couple experts in the field but don't understand quite a bit of their work.

One of these days I'll have to ask one to "define" the simplest word. It will probably be over my head though.

> ...and your proof for this is...?

Again, this is according to experts. Yes, I did notice that Ancient Language doesn't follow Zipf's Law before I knew what Zipf's Law even is. I attend to language and word choice much more than most people and always have. The Pyramid Texts simply leaped out as not containing any of the words that cause the the incidence of word usage to be a straight line on a logarithmic scale. It was researching this that led me to Zipf's Law.

I have a few hypotheses as to the cause of this word distribution but in essence I believe they can be laid at the feet of an organic process. AL was not "organic" either.

> I'd be quite intrigued to see the proof, since
> Zipf's law applies to the whole corpus. Examining
> messages here shows that they don't follow Zipf's
> law and yet are perfectly comprehensible. In
> fact, individual messages on this board do not
> show the same pattern of words as predicted in
> Zipf's law.

Yes! Sample size has to be significant to fill in the curve and different authors increase the need to have a larger sample.

Part of the reason that Ancient Language stands out so much as being so very very different than any modern language is that there are so very few words in it. I once went through several pages of the dictionary in different sections counting those words that appear in AL. Many pages had no words at all. Ancient Language had very very few words in it.

> Actually, English has a LOT of linguistic rules.
> We notice when non-English speakers violate them.

And many rules are frequently broken.

> > Indeed the English can be deconstructed in all
> > manner of ways especially if the statement is
> > spoken rather than written. "Four" and its
> > homonyms have thousands of meanings as do
> "equal",
> > "plus", and "two".

> Now you're conflating spoken English with written
> English. "Four" is not the same as "for" or
> "fore."

No matter. The fact is each of these words have many definitions and connotations as well as unique usages even excluding homonyms.

> ...and I'm
> not sure you understand what's meant by digital
> here.

All logic and data are digital or can be expressed digitally. Even animal brains operate digitally with each neuron on or off.

All modern human languages are symbolic, abstract, and have no fixed definitions.

> ...and I'm beginning to suspect you have only a
> limited idea about math and computer code.

You are correct. I wasn't even adept at advanced calculus.

> (raises eyebrow at term 'metaphysics')

I'm using the definition of "metaphysics" that is "basis of science". These are the definitions, axioms, and experiments that define theory but excluding paradigms. .

> Language has to follow certain rules to be
> utilitarian and understandable.

Yes. But no matter how clearly, precisely, and literally you express yourself many will parse your words in wholly unintended ways. No two individuals will parse any sentence the exact same way. It's impossible because words lack fixed meanings. Ancient words had fixed meanings.

> A language that
> is full of metaphysical analogies or jargon won't
> survive long enough to be passed on because it's
> not useful.

AL was the "basis of ancient science", I believe. Language was logical and meanings were fixed. We have nothing at all like it but math comes closest but where equations have a single application sentences had universal application.

> This would be quite a bit more than either of us
> reads or speaks (I am fluent in one,
> tourist-fluent in about three, and can read bits
> and pieces of Latin and ancient Egyptian.) In
> addition, those who worked with him or continued
> his work were also talented linguists who could
> speak and write in many languages. As the
> language was translated, we learned many concepts
> that were not present in ancient writings (ma'at,
> for instance, or the idea of the multilayered
> soul).

Well I'm jealous. I can communicate with a very wide swathe of of personality types and educational levels if they speak English and I can read Spanish OK. I used to read a little Latin but I seriously doubt I still could.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.