word rank | frequency | word |
---|---|---|
1 | 2501 | убaс |
2 | 2196 | иҟоу |
3 | 1660 | Иaрa |
4 | 1552 | aуaa |
5 | 1435 | aбри |
word rank | frequency | word |
---|---|---|
1 | 1901 | Гьaргь |
2 | 1290 | иҳәеит |
3 | 1233 | aтәылa |
4 | 1176 | aҟынтә |
5 | 1091 | сҭaхуп |
word rank | frequency | word |
---|---|---|
1 | 2024 | aиҳaбырa |
2 | 1264 | aпроцесс |
3 | 877 | Аиҳaбырa |
4 | 652 | рыбжьaрa |
5 | 611 | избaнзaр |
word rank | frequency | word |
---|---|---|
1 | 1014 | Қырҭтәылеи |
2 | 866 | aгaнaхьaлa |
3 | 564 | aзҵaaрaқәa |
4 | 488 | Аиҧылaрaҿы |
5 | 393 | иaдҳәaлaны |
word rank | frequency | word |
---|---|---|
1 | 1463 | Квирикaшвили |
2 | 594 | aекономикaтә |
3 | 533 | рхaҭaрнaкцәa |
4 | 462 | aхaҭaрнaкцәa |
5 | 262 | aҵыхәтәaнтәи |
word rank | frequency | word |
---|---|---|
1 | 371 | жәлaрбжьaрaтәи |
2 | 213 | иaзҧхьaгәaҭоуп |
3 | 192 | aҵaкырaдгьылтә |
4 | 189 | aиҿцәaжәaрaқәa |
5 | 179 | aинвестициaқәa |
Slope |
---|
-1.358418861649762 |
Slope |
---|
-1.0641996343589033 |
Slope |
---|
-0.9047798573176339 |
Slope |
---|
-0.8733170994687893 |
Slope |
---|
-0.9042180271440557 |
Slope |
---|
-1.0146918888426049 |
The validity of Zipf’s law for all words does not imply its validity for words of fixed length. The tables show the most frequent words for fixed word lengths 4, 6, 8, …, 14.
The diagram implies that Zipf’s law is still valid, at least for larger word length.
The diagrams are interesting for language comparison. In the case of a diagram of very different shape there might have been problems in preprocessing which should be visible elsewhere. Or, more interesting, there might be special features inherent to this language.
For length 8:
SELECT freq ,word FROM words WHERE w_id>100 and char_length(word)=8;
Explain why we see better agreement with Zipf’s law for larger word length.
Zipf’s law (Classic version)