Re: [Corpora-List] Google searches as linguistic evidence

From: Yorick Wilks (Yorick@dcs.shef.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 08 2006 - 13:01:25 MET

  • Next message: Nicholas Sanders: "Re: [Corpora-List] Google searches as linguistic evidence"

    Apologies!!
    Careful rereading shows me you can see that perfectly well!
    Sorry
    YW

    On 7 Dec 2006, at 12:50, Fanny Meunier wrote:

    > Hi there,
    >
    > Your question puzzled me and I googled "a worshop" (7840000 hits) vs
    > "an workshop" (21500 hits).
    >
    > It struck me that they were quite a lot of German refs such as 
    > Sie bitte an workshop@... (= sthg like: please see workshop@...)
    > schicken Sie bitte eine Email an workshop (= sthg like: please send
    > an e-mail to workshop@...)
    > direkt per E-Mail an workshop@... (= directly via e-mail to
    > workshop@...)
    >
    > Food for thought...
    >
    > All the best,
    > Fanny
    >  
    >
    >
    > Le 13:13 7/12/2006,Diana Maynard écrit:
    >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >>
    >> No problem, it was my fault for being too hasty also.
    >> I agree entirely.
    >> Another little story....
    >>
    >> A non-English colleague asked me the other day if the correct phrase
    >> was "a workshop" or "an workshop". I was quite surprised at the
    >> question, especially as the colleague said he had searched for both
    >> on Google as he was not sure which to use, and found more occurrences
    >> of the former, but still many occurrences of the latter. He also said
    >> that to him the pronunciation of the latter sounded better (which I
    >> found odd as I actually found it quite difficult to pronounce, but
    >> perhaps that's a non-native speaker thing).
    >> I checked on Google and he was right about the occurrences.
    >>
    >> Are there any times when it would be OK to use "an" before a word
    >> beginning with "w"?
    >> I'd be interested to know what the BNC or other corpora show up on
    >> that.
    >> Diana
    >>
    >>
    >> Ramesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
    >>> Hi Diana
    >>> Sorry about the brevity of my previous email.
    >>> I didn't mean to be rude, just in a hurry as usual...
    >>>
    >>> But I was raising a genuine concern of mine. An experience last
    >>> year: challenged in
    >>> my daughter's school playground by 2 mothers who had heard of my
    >>> involvement with
    >>> writing dictionaries, I was asked to resolve their dispute: "is
    >>> unpunctual a word, can I
    >>> say unpunctual".
    >>>
    >>> It was not listed in any of the printed 6 or 7 native-speaker (US
    >>> and UK) and
    >>> learner's dictionaries I looked at. There were 15 occurrences in
    >>> Bank of English (5 in British
    >>> Magazines, 4 in Independent, and a few one-offs), so below the
    >>> normal threshold for inclusion
    >>> in Cobuild at the time.
    >>>
    >>> But I found 4320 hits on Google (43,100 today!
    >>> - so has its usage increased, or has Google's trawl just got
    >>> bigger?), *mostly entries in
    >>> online dictionaries (based on each other?)*... but also 9000+ for
    >>> impunctual, 5000 for non-punctual,
    >>> 500 for nonpunctual, 400 for contrapunctual, 11 for apunctual, and
    >>> 7 for anti-punctual...
    >>>
    >>> When I looked closer at the hits, most of the hits for impunctual
    >>> were from a 1913 USA dictionary,
    >>> most of the hits for non(-)punctual were (technical use) from
    >>> linguistics texts, and
    >>> most hits for contrapunctual were from music texts.
    >>>
    >>> So I told the mothers that unpunctual was a valid word form
    >>> (ie created according to valid derivational rules)
    >>> but that it wasn't very widely used.
    >>>
    >>> PS I've just noticed a discussion on unpunctual at
    >>> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=105391
    >>>
    >>> Best
    >>> Ramesh
    >>>
    >>>
    >>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 08 2006 - 12:58:56 MET