Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: No Coke, Peksi [sic] (was: RE: Typical lexicon size in natlangs)

Expand Messages
  • Sam Stutter
    I tell you what annoys me - people who try and tell me that diet Coke or caffeine-free Coke tastes different to normal Coke _and_ is, for some reason,
    Message 1 of 59 , May 15, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I tell you what annoys me - people who try and tell me that diet Coke or caffeine-free Coke tastes different to normal Coke _and_ is, for some reason, revolting.

      I can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi though - Pepsi tastes more like Coke than Coke - if you see what I mean. And both are inferior in the eyes of Orangina. Wait, what has this got to do with conlangs again? :)

      Sam Stutter
      samjjs89@...
      "No e na'l cu barri"

      On 15 May 2013, at 11:31, George Corley <gacorley@...> wrote:

      > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' <
      > elena.valhalla@...> wrote:
      >
      >> On 2013-05-14 at 23:00:59 -0400, Douglas Koller wrote:
      >>> Can a blindfolded taste-test be far behind? Long-shot of our hapless
      >> taster at the mall...The big reveal...The squeal of delight...
      >>
      >> we did an informal one with our friends (poured in another room, brought
      >> to the tasters by somebody else, but then I'm not 100% that the one who
      >> poured did stay in the other room all of the time)
      >>
      >> everybody was able to distinguish between bottled coca cola and bottled
      >> pepsi cola as sold in Italy (I don't know if the taste changes when
      >> using high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar)
      >
      >
      > I haven't had cola with sugar, but I can tell from other sodas that the
      > taste will probably be very different. Cane sugar has a very different
      > kind of sweet from high fructose corn syrup.
    • Juanma Barranquero
      ... Sure. But this thread discusses typical lexicon size , and Gary Shannon and H. S. Teoh proposed a bootstrap lexicon size as a meaningful measure. And
      Message 59 of 59 , May 20, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Anthony Miles <mamercus88@...> wrote:

        > Even in an impoverished environment humans or something like them will expand vocabulary.

        Sure. But this thread discusses "typical lexicon size", and Gary
        Shannon and H. S. Teoh proposed a "bootstrap lexicon size" as a
        meaningful measure. And I'm just pointing out that I don't think it
        would be a good metric, because if you use it for many languages, and
        the resulting size varies, let's say, between X-10% and X+10% for some
        X, that does not offer any insight about the *typical* lexicon size of
        the languages so tested. Systems of vastly different complexity can
        arise from similarly simple foundations (cellular automata are a clear
        example of that).

        J
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.