This is a listing of the most-used words in the English language, ranked in order. It has over 86000 words on it. You can plug in a word and it tells you the rank or you can plug in a rank and it tells you the word. One NEAT site!
http://www.wordcount.org/main.php
All I get is a blank white page, in either Opera or Exploder.
It works fine on my machine. Perhaps there is some degree of operator error.
It includes naughty words. Who wudda thunk that the naughtiest one would come right after "charming" and next before "workshop"?
operator error
I wonder if it needs Flash/Shockwave, something we *still haven't installed on our machine?
worked fine for me in OSX with Safari. yeah, you need Flash. but for Flash sites, this one is pretty small, which is nice.
and it is a lot of fun!
Also seems to include misspellings: suprise is #86033. And who woulda thought Forgan (an Oklahoma town, pop. 489), at 86027, would outrank both downloading (86031) and conquistador (86800). Especially downloading.
Yeah, it's quite time consuming to have to load a flash *document for each single incremental change (increase or decrease) across the list.
However, at #66 I did find the first word of personal interest.
Thanks for both the commentary and the technical info, y'all.
I got to thinking about this website, and it occurred to me to be an excellent method for communicating in code, particularly if one were to scramble the word order and agree with the recipient on the new order.
And you would have to scramble it somehow, since a dead giveaway would be to have most of the coded text coming from the first hundred or first thousand five-digit numbers.
This might be something NSA should take a look at!
The 'naughtiest' word I can think of comes between nudged and dogmatic.
TEd,
Sounds like the theme for a new novel by your own good self.
Look at 3043 and the six words following it! I'm having a hard time accepting this as more or less random!
Sites that require Flash *normally tell you they need Flash.
Yeah, but I don't see any relevance. There's a tacit statement that the words are just in the order of use.
I guess a seven letter sentence that sort of makes sense is probably just an anomaly, but......
well, I guess I was thinking about this paragraph:
Observing closely ranked words tells us a great deal about our culture. For instance, “God” is one word from “began”, two words from “start”, and six words from “war”. Another sequence is "america ensure oil opportunity". Conspiracists unite! As ever, the more one explores, the more is revealed.
perhaps words that go together, stay together...
...*normally...
Finally, someone actually® uses an asterisk as it's *supposed.
Finally, someone actually® uses an asterisk as it's *supposed.
I've never quite figured out what this board's unique usage of the asterisk is. I've seen it used in olden times gone by as a marker of footnotes; in linguistics it first marked hypothetical reconstructions and second ungrammatical sentences; after finding onlinehood asterisks delimited some sort of emphasis. But now here I see a single asterisk, prepended to a word, and I gotta wonder. Is there a locus classicus for this usage?
It's either tsuwm's or musick's way of italicizing for emphasis, I believe. But let us await a pronouncement from the horse's mouth, as if it was.
PS
onlinehood 
It's either tsuwm's or musick's way of italicizing for emphasis, I believe. But let us await a pronouncement from the horse's mouth, as if it was.
Thanks, AnnaStrophic, I remember underlines for _italics_ and asterisks for *bold*, but I guess things are different hereabouts.
"locus classicus" - Just wondering... does every board have their own Latin?
*************
You'll have to personally ask what tsuwm intends when he uses them... as if we'll ever see that *happen again.
As for myself - it informs to the reader of at least one of the following three things, but most times all of them:
- The meaning of the word is interpretable, and its use is/was intended that way. There is a good chance you think this word means something different than I do and an even better chance that I don't mean what the word *says.
- It may not be the word I was looking for, but taken in context, you'll probably understand I was being sarcastic. But, maybe *not...
- Tongue firmly planted in cheek.
EDIT - I firmly believe that at least one word in most sentences (of mine, at least) fits the above *bill and, therefore, my use of the asterisk offers more *functionality. I doing my best to say that with a straight face.
tsuwm's usage, as is mine, is based on the convention of delimiting a *strongly* stressed word with asterisks. A *slightly stressed word only gets one, in front.
A *slightly stressed word only gets one, in front.
I like it. Thanks.
"locus classicus" - Just wondering... does every board have their own Latin?
Not sure what you *mean. I was just asking for a standard reference for your usage.
jheem - What does "locus classicus" translate into?
I can guess. I'd be also guessing that even Latin has dialects. All in good fun, of course.
*********
Now I don't know what 'mean' means... or do I.
*********
And on another note:
- I like to use 'these' single quotes when emphasising a word or talking about a word as an object, whereas "these" double quotes are actually® quoting somone's usage.
'Actually' is actually® registered to tsuwm and its use is restricted (YCLIU).
What does "locus classicus" translate into? Secundum A-H: "A passage from a classic or standard work that is cited as an illustration or instance."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/56/L0225600.htmlClassicus means all kinds of things in Classical Latin: it means related to or of a
classis ('a division of the Roman people; fleet; army'), 'related to the fleet; first class'.
Now I don't know what 'mean' means... or do I.I've *had trouble with
mean since reading Ogden and Richards'
Meaning of Meaning.
I like to use 'these' single quotes when emphasising a word or talking about a word as an object, whereas "these" double quotes are actually® quoting somone's usage.I like to use foot signs to delimit glosses: e.g., French
glas (< L.
classis) 'death knell'. And, I use inch signs to delimit direct quotations, e.g., X said "How classy.", but also as "scare" quotes. As for apostrophes and other kinds of curly quotes, I only use them wysiwyggily, like in a word processor.
'Actually' is actually® registered to tsuwm and its use is restricted (YCLIU). I was under the impression that you couldn't register a single English word as a trademark. But *cool! Besides, the TPO is closed on the weekends.
I'm guessing (Using a latin translator) either you're asking me if I feel I had fulfilled my duties by posting as I did or if you did as you posted in response.
Was I even close?
Geez, it's *dry in here...
Using a latin translator either you're asking me if I feel I had fulfilled my duties by posting as I did or if you did as you posted in response.
The subject line is it? Your pre- & de- fork()ed subject line just got me to riffing. Defututus 'exhausted by sensuality' is a hapax legomenon which Catullus applies to a girl Ameana. Futuo 'to engage in sexual intercourse', OTOH, is a common enough verb, though almost as dirty in Latin as its counterpart is in English. I was trying to say "Where the heck is it?" i.e., the little asterisk. But it could just as easily be imagined to mean: 'where/when was he sexually exhausted?', kind of tuckered out. Latin futuo yields Spanish hoder and French foutre.
The poem in question:
Ameana puella defututa
tota milia me decem poposcit,
ista turpiculo puella naso,
decoctoris amica Formiani.
Propinqui, quibus est puella curae,
amicos medicosque convocate:
non est sana puella, nec rogare
qualis sit solet aes imaginosum.
Carl Orff used this poem in his Catulli carmina which except for the intro and the outro is all a capella.
Are you a Southern boy in West Coast clothing, jheem?
Are you a Southern boy in West Coast clothing?
Nope, I was born back East, actually North-East of Sonoma in California. The hopsital is now a winery. Sonoma sided with the Union during the Civil War. It must be Petaluma you're thinking of, or Rough and Ready; they both sided with the successionists.
>they both sided with the successionists
who in turn, I suppose, allied theirselves with the secessionists?!
{sorry}
successionists [vs] secessionists
Yup, should've just called them Confederates. That I can spell.
That I can spell.Happens to the best of us jheem. Sometimes, I'll reread my post and it all seems perfect, and then, I'll read it a day later to follow the thread again, and up pops an error that seems sooo glaring.
and up pops an error that seems sooo glaring.
Ta, belMarduk. At least I'm typing. Nobody, including myself a day later, can read my handwriting. ;)