tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 25 07:28:32 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: scrabble
- From: Burt Clawson <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: scrabble
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:27:01 -0600
ja' charghwI':
>
> As tempting as it is to use the computer to count these things,
> I've decided that it is completely arbitrary. I'm even trying to
> reduce the number of entries by notating slightly updated
> meanings under the same header, avoiding an opportunity to list
> a repeat as if it were a new word. Example:
> ram - (v) "be trivial, trifling, unimportant / insignificant"
> [TKD / KGT]
Yes, I did the same kind of thing.
> Did you count the ram = "insignificant" entry as a separate
> entry? It becomes arbitrary when a word becomes different enough
> from its homonym to be listed as a separate word while the words
> in question are the same part of speech. I'm also creating a new
> field I'm calling "derivative" in order to get a better sense of
> how many root words there are. By this, I mean {ghojmoH} is not
> counted as a new word. It is a derivative of {ghoj}.
/ram/ is only listed once as [be] trivial, (once as night, and once as a
part of the simile "trivial as a glob fly." I didn't use simile
constructions in my analysis!) /ghojmoH/ and /ghoj/ I counted separately.
> Still, while trying to decrease the count, I'm trying to collect
> the entire vocabulary as it has been presented to us.
> The task of figuring frequencies for Scrabble is quite complex
> and just as arbitrary. You should, for example, count each
> prefix once per verb root, since any prefix will be valid to add
> to the beginning of a root... except for those obviously
> intransitive verbs and transitive prefixes...
> And then, most verb suffixes can go on any verb (except that
> some of them are senseless combinations, like {-chuq} and
> {-'egh} on intransitive verbs, except when combined with {-moH})
> and you can combine the different suffixes in interesting, but
> not formulaic ways. In other words, any time you try to work out
> a formula, you come up with a lot of combinations that are
> gibberish. The only way to make it truely accurate is to go
> through and test every combination.
> I don't think any of us are up for THAT little project. Anyway,
> whatever is done here is arbitrary. The thing is to make
> arbitrary choices and see if the resulting game is interesting.
:-) I've thought seriously about it, but then I have other things I like to
do, like eat, sleep, etc.
> charghwI'
- tuv'el