Quote (psw @ Wed, Sep 3 2008, 10:28pm)
His point overlooks the fact that the word appears three times the number of times in 40 years that it appeared in the first 45. So his math has to be flawed somewhere. His number of appearance per periodical is correct (I had figured that when I did the first data collection), but the number data analysis is spurious at best and arbitrary at worst. Besides, I'm not sure how he's figuring times per periodical unless he has checked the actual number of periodicals in the data set.
Well you altered the original numbers, even though his percent per periodical is inflated possibly due to the fact he didnt compensate for one set of data that is 45 years and the otherthat is 40 there still exists little to no huge statistical gap. Thats neither here nor there your trying to discuss the formalities of an word and contrast how time has manipulated or altered the amount of usage of such word, which means that there should be an large gap in order to portray any conclusive evidence for the sake of your argument.
/edit anipage 43
This post was edited by VodkaLover on Sep 3 2008 09:03pm