Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎An unbiased test: Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts. That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-)
Line 138: Line 138:  
<p>Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:</p>
 
<p>Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:</p>
 
<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Number of Words</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>104</td></tr></table>
 
<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Number of Words</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>104</td></tr></table>
 +
 +
: Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s.  Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.
 +
 +
:That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts.  That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
    
===Table of random words===
 
===Table of random words===
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,204

edits

Navigation menu