Tracking The (English) Words We Use

Zugok writes "Wordcount.org has an interactive presentation of the 86,800 most frequently used English words. In addition they have Query Count which is a dynamic database of what are the most queried words on Wword Count. Then there is the conspiracy corner where certain words seems to end up in some sort of eerie order. Cowboy comes 14834 and Neal comes 18928. Bebop comes 70673."

Comments

another word

[mrpuffypants]

fuck is number 5598

Actually, I expected this to be higher since I watched Goodfellas last night.

I have looked up all the rude words:

[irn_bru]

Fu*k = 5598 (unbelieveably)
Cu*t = 18636
Bush = 2629
Microsoft = 4304

NSFW!

[welshwaterloo]

In case anyone's curious at work - don't click the link to see what other people are searching for.

I mean, I guess I should've known, but I didn't expect the font size to be so damned *large*!

(Not, of course that anyone would waste work time by reading /.)

I wonder what rank

[jayhawk88]

"Slashdot" and "effect" are located at?

Re:86,800 most frequently used English words???

[shadowcabbit]

Gigarectum is one that's probably not so frequently used. Same goes for Xenomorph, flagellate, moribund, logorrhea, sialoquent, genetrix, and bolection.

(Most of these I got from here: http://phrontistery.50megs.com/ihlstart.html)

Slow news day?

[Krafty Koder]

I submitted a story about WordCount way way back in August.

It was rejected.

"Word Count Tuesday August 03, @06:04AM Rejected "

992-995 america ensure oil opportunity
3046-3051 iraq winner, fucking smooth, nick votes

WordCount Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi everybody!

Jon Harris here, the creator of WordCount. The server got slammed by SlashDot (thanks guys!) and and my server is down. There is a mirror of WordCount up at: http://www.fabrica.it/wordcount

Enjoy!

Best,
Jon

for the record, the 7 dirty words not allowed

[gemtech]

on TV (according to George Carlin) are: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.

Also,

[ambrosen]

The BNC only goes up to 1990, as well. Linux wasn't a word then. Microsoft ranks 5293 on the list I've got, occurring 1704 times in 100 million words

How many people speak English?

[Jonti]

Well over a billion people speak English. Sure, around a quarter of them live in the US, but that still means most do not.

Even so, I kinda agree with what you say, that the site is close to misrepresenting itself. But the greater dishonesty is surely that the bloody thing is just grandstanding with public data -- it's almost useless, presumably by design, for practical purposes. So, yes, I too would rather the authors had been clear about their American background.

Here's some stats ...

• English has official or special status in at least seventy five countries with a total population of over two billion
• English is spoken as a first language by around 375 million and as a second language by around 375 million speakers in the world
• speakers of English as a second language probably outnumber those who speak it as a first language
• around 750 million people are believed to speak English as a foreign language
• one out of four of the world's population speak English to some level of competence; demand from the other three-quarters is increasing.

• It looks to me as if the sums work like this:
  375m (1st language)
  375m (2nd language)
  750m (learned English as a foreign language)
  -----
  1500m
  

  http://www.britishcouncil.org/english/engfaqs.htm

History of the English language

[siskbc]

If it helps, think of American English as a foreign language. You wouldn't call someone in Spain on the phone and insist on speaking English, would you? Similarly, when calling an American, it would serve you well to make accomodations for their knowledge of your language, particularly if you expect that you are more knowledgeable of American English than the person to whom you are speaking is of UK English.

Also, it's not as if you are "correct" and the American "incorrect." Languages are fluid. Languages evolve, including English. Brits (I include Canadians here, having severed ties only quite recently) have really screwed up the proper German you were taught ~1500 years ago too. And the Norwegian you were taught ~1200 years ago. And the French you were taught 968 years ago. As such, would you consider the entire English language "incorrect?" Many words had various spellings in the 1600s when English was brought to America. As such, it's not accurate to claim that the American spelling is incorrect, when we simply chose one of the accepted spellings at the time and the Brits chose the other. It might be different if the English language had an established spelling for a certain word by 1500 and Americans changed, but this is not the case. For all the pedantic spelling and grammar correction, many Brits (and Canadians) seem to be ignorant of the history of their own language.

One might also suggest that you not engage in such displays of self-superiority - "When in Rome..." one might say. You seem to share the attitude of tourists in foreign lands who expect to have waiters (for example) speak their own native language and become irate when the waiter can't or won't. Admittedly, Americans are one of the major contributors to the image of the self-righteous tourist, and I find that disgusting too. Ultimately, one can adapt to your host nation - even if it's simply over the phone - or one can maintain self-righteousness and deal with the inevitable inaccuracies. What does one gain from this exchange, anyway?

As for the Americans in Canada you cite, their mistakes are borne of ignorance rather than self-righteousness. The difference borne of ignorance is correctable. I would politely, without condescencion, inform them that the letter they refer to as "zee" is called "zed" by the rest of the English speaking world. If they insist on maintaining their behavior, then your ire would be well-placed - if you didn't insist on doing the same, that is.

All in all, there's really no need for this "whose language is correct" debate. Language is a tool. If you can effectively with the other party, you have no problem. Your problem is you intentionally choose not to simply due to ego, which I find baffling.

Re:Flash?

[fiannaFailMan]

I've refuted this line of 'reasoning' in my jounral. Have a look. Flash, when implemented properly, is the perfect tool for delivering content in certain applications where a lot of interaction is required. It is a lot more efficient than re-loading a whole page of HTML just for the sake of updating a few words on it. If the whole page changes, then HTML begins to have an advantage.

Please don't present an argument about technical issues based on how you 'hate' a technology. We have to examine technologies and their implementation on their own merits, not based on emotion.