30-07-2019, 10:18 AM
Hi Marco, (I've emailed you some pages last week, probably it's in your spam folder)
Currently I am working on another passion manuscript, and your first graph is comparing random things,
words, with no relation whatsoever, it does not really show anything, to me. sorry.
The second graph is something, but really, coming to a wording such as you wrote:
"One can speculate that maybe the labels are nouns/adjectives, while the top 10 most frequent words are some kind of "function words". Anyway (unless I have made some major mistake) we can say that the set of one-word labels is almost totally disjoint from the set of the 10 most frequent words."
makes me wonder, if this is a discussion that can be satisfactory.
I've looked up my old stuff, and here I compared a.o. the labels, the letters, their position in the words, with other textual possibilities.
Look for the graph that says: CAB labels and compare it to the previous graph, CAB language or a NST, it does not really matter. You will see all the letters and their positions. These are similar. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I repeat that the one thing does *not* rule out the other thing here. You can not assume nouns or verbs are inside labels or not.
Letter occurrences on itself, are not really a measure for a noun or any word. Furthermore, words, or their positions or their occ. are also *not* a basis on which one can draw conclusions on either of them.
At the max you can say, the reversed thing: if the word-labels are nouns, and the text in them behave the same as the other text, and they have not been found partly or as a whole, explicitly in the other text. They, very probably, have no direct word-relation in that same text scheme.
There could another textual relation, labels could be, for example, use a table reference, use another encryption, of perhaps are nonsense a filler. But those are just examples.
Currently I am working on another passion manuscript, and your first graph is comparing random things,
words, with no relation whatsoever, it does not really show anything, to me. sorry.
The second graph is something, but really, coming to a wording such as you wrote:
"One can speculate that maybe the labels are nouns/adjectives, while the top 10 most frequent words are some kind of "function words". Anyway (unless I have made some major mistake) we can say that the set of one-word labels is almost totally disjoint from the set of the 10 most frequent words."
makes me wonder, if this is a discussion that can be satisfactory.
I've looked up my old stuff, and here I compared a.o. the labels, the letters, their position in the words, with other textual possibilities.
Look for the graph that says: CAB labels and compare it to the previous graph, CAB language or a NST, it does not really matter. You will see all the letters and their positions. These are similar. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I repeat that the one thing does *not* rule out the other thing here. You can not assume nouns or verbs are inside labels or not.
Letter occurrences on itself, are not really a measure for a noun or any word. Furthermore, words, or their positions or their occ. are also *not* a basis on which one can draw conclusions on either of them.
At the max you can say, the reversed thing: if the word-labels are nouns, and the text in them behave the same as the other text, and they have not been found partly or as a whole, explicitly in the other text. They, very probably, have no direct word-relation in that same text scheme.
There could another textual relation, labels could be, for example, use a table reference, use another encryption, of perhaps are nonsense a filler. But those are just examples.