NGL: Rag-tag vocabulary proposals

>
>On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:32:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Durst <spynx@...>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Stephen DeGrace wrote:
>>
>>> *dus V              -       agree
>>= Jack: I think this would be more derivationally usefull as a noun:
>>Form as: N    V       meaning
>>      dus     dusci   agreement
>>      dusfe   dus     agree
>>      dusir   duscir  contract
>>      duska   duska   "the agreed upon place" (a common contractual term)
>>The difference is marginal, so I'd second either form, but it still seems
>>more intuitively usefull as a noun.
>
>=Stephen: In choosing the part of speech, I was thinking more along
>the lines of the _frequency_ with which the unadorned root would be
>used in speech,
I once had an address to an on-line corpus with word frequency, but I've
lost it. Can anyone help out with this? Meanwhile I found this one which
points to some resources that might be able to settle quesions like the
one raised here, namely, what is the ball park frequency of agree or
agreement. That's the _word_ agree :).

gopher://gopher.sil.org/11/gopher_root/linguistics/info/

Jerry

>the idea being that it doesn't matter if a couple of the derivations
>are a bit shorter if it still requires more verbiage due to the the
>more common terms being longer. My _feeling_, based on what I'm
>looking for more more often than not when I look for something based
>on that basic meaning, is that the verbal form is likely to have the
>highest frequency of use and therefore entail less overall verbiage.
>Be that as it may, it's six of one half a dozen of the other to me. I
>still prefer {dus} as V, but I'll wait and see before deciding where I
>finally stand on it.
>
>Stephen
>
>
>ICQ#: 27990700
>
>
>