ERDNASE

[Leonard Hevia]

You're welcome Bob! For the moment this is might be of interest:

http://nemca.com/wp/ymc-18/

[lybrary]

Furthermore, for centuries, textual analysis has been done in a similar manner, picking apart the salient aspects of texts and making qualitative judgements and generalizations.

Finding features in the text is only one component of a linguistic analysis. Without calculating frequencies or making some comparison to average use, or other authors, you have stopped in the middle of the analysis, which means it is impossible to draw any conclusions. Below I reproduce a table from my ebook (page 82), which is a list of features followed by the factor of above average usage. For example, Erdnase uses the word subterfuge about 96 times more frequently than Google reports the usage of that word in 1901. Gallaway uses it 35 times more frequently than the usage of that word in 1927, a.s.o.

Code: Select all

cinnamon word/phrase        Erdnase       Gallaway
subterfuge                       96             35
hard luck                        98             91
end for end                     190            600
proportionately                  13             29
comparatively                     2              4
understanding                     7              2
for all practical purposes       22             57
it is impossible to               5              6
almost impossible to             15             12
imparting the knowledge/
impart that knowledge          3000           5000

There are more tables and more examples in my ebook Hunt for Erdnase. If I would not filter by significance then I could produce a list of many hundreds of words and phrases, but that would be meaningless.

[Leonard Hevia]

Is that your answer? A table? Examples of Gallaway's writing that mirror Erdnase in various ways are where the rubber meets the road. That means you have stopped in the middle of that road since you cannot provide examples of Gallawy's writing that mirror themes and use of language from The Expert. Where is the humor, dialect, alliteration, idioms, and foreign terms from The Expert in Gallawy's writing?

Half baked linguistic pseudo science is a poor substitute for tangible evidence. That you have managed to utilize that dodgy argument as the cornerstone to market your $45.00 Gallawy ebook is remarkable. You are left with little recourse but to continue invoking the name of Dr. Ollson like a Native Amercan shaman, and hope your ebook purchasers don't notice your glaring lack of evidence.

[jkeyes1000]

Chris is absolutely right in saying that the general frequency of common words and phrases is of the greatest importance. Every writer at that time used this sort of language (more or less). Which is why we should not consider this approach to be decisive in itself.

Regardless of the frequency of common words, we must remain in doubt of their authorship until we can identify the true character of the writer by studying his quirks, and attributing them to a known source.

Rather than support our argument, we undermine it, if we cannot match those inventive qualities. The two traits, those of frequency and creativity, must be found together.

Discovering only the colloquialisms of the era, and virtually none of the real peculiarities of the writer in question, may be seen as progress, but ultimately gets you nowhere. Lacking those essential eccentricities, you are likely to prove yourself wrong.

[lybrary]

Where is the humor, dialect, alliteration, idioms, and foreign terms from The Expert in Gallawy's writing?

In case you didn't know "hard luck", "end for end", "for all practical purposes", "imparting the knowledge" are all idioms. As a circus orator you can be certain that he had sufficient humor to match Erdnase, because he had to draw and hold a crowd. Gallaway was explicitly described that way. For example: “Such a trio as Tom Quin, Theodore Regensteiner, and Edward Gallaway surpass anything in wit and humor that Flo Ziegfeld or Earl Caroll so far has produced.” Or: "...which proved to be one of the hilarious hits of the show." That is independent third party verification.

I have written about alliterations many months ago in my newsletter and here on the forum. Here is a sample of Gallaway's alliterations, which were taken from prose not from poems where alliteration is much more common:

- efficiency expert
- constant companion
- care and caution
- patience and perseverance
- grand and glorious
- venerable and venerated
- shimmering silver and royal red
- the department with the pep - the department with the pup
- royal reception
- high honors
- wheels of commerce whirring
- moniker of “Mickey”
- features of future

[Bob Coyne]

Furthermore, for centuries, textual analysis has been done in a similar manner, picking apart the salient aspects of texts and making qualitative judgements and generalizations.

Finding features in the text is only one component of a linguistic analysis. Without calculating frequencies or making some comparison to average use, or other authors, you have stopped in the middle of the analysis, which means it is impossible to draw any conclusions.
[...]
If I would not filter by significance then I could produce a list of many hundreds of words and phrases, but that would be meaningless.

I don't know what you mean by "meaningless". We see patterns and navigate through everyday life without calculating any frequencies or looking at charts of numbers. To take a simple example, if you hear two musicians play a song, you don't need to prove to yourself by looking at a chart of how many of each note and duration are in the piece. You can *hear* that it's the same melody. Or perhaps you don't hear it at first (if one is a very jazzed up treatment or with different instruments or arrangement) but then someone points out the salient parts and then you can hear it. Or maybe it's so faint that you can't hear for sure and can't go beyond concluding that it was probably the same song, but there's room for doubt. In any case, these judgements we make continually are anything but meaningless.

So that's part of what my Erdnase/Sanders compilation is aimed at doing -- pointing out the similarities so our built-in intuitions and pattern processing can be better applied. Once something is pointed out, it becomes easier to recognize. In the case of Erdnase/Sanders, the language and the thematic concerns are very similar.

But to continue the example... even if you insist on verifying song identity via a chart of note occurrences, a simple note count model doesn't capture the salient information (how those notes fit into chord structures, how they follow each other, how they're transposed, etc). So you'd then be stuck analyzing what's wrong with your feature set and statistical model that it couldn't capture the most obvious thing. You'd then have to adopt a more sophisticated model. So you change models because your intuitions override the models!!

It's only recently that machine learning models have become good enough (in some cases, trained with reams of labeled data) to do acceptably well at the sort of pattern recognition that humans perform with no effort at all. And even those methods miserably fail when there's not enough data or the underlying structures and features aren't understood well enough. If you read some machine translation of a text that's obviously wrong, do you conclude that your judgement was at fault?

Anyway, I'm not dismissing the value of trying to be quantitative. It would be interesting to see some frequency analysis of engineering-oriented terms, for example. Or other themes that seem apparent in Erdnase/Sanders. But that only goes so far -- it's much harder to analyze more linguistically oriented patterns, idioms, wordplay, and conventions. So I wouldn't put the cart before the horse and claim that simple models should supersede well founded intuitions backed up by examples. And I wouldn't call it "stopping in the middle of analysis" to compile a large list of salient examples (as i've done). Instead, I'd call that the beginning of meaningful analysis.

[Bob Coyne]

Where is the humor, dialect, alliteration, idioms, and foreign terms from The Expert in Gallawy's writing?

I have written about alliterations many months ago in my newsletter and here on the forum. Here is a sample of Gallaway's alliterations, which were taken from prose not from poems where alliteration is much more common:

- efficiency expert
- constant companion
- care and caution
- patience and perseverance
- grand and glorious
[...]

Most of the Gallaway alliterations you list (e.g. "grand and glorious") are frozen fixed phrases. So they function as a single lexical unit and just become a word choice among others. They're not instances of choosing words so as to form an alliteration.

I think that the Sander's alliterations I've collected are not primarily from his poems but from his prose. But I'd have to check to be sure.

In any case, distinctions of that sort (generative vs fixed alliterations and prose vs poetry) are the type of qualitative textual and feature analysis that moves the ball forward.

[lybrary]

And I wouldn't call it "stopping in the middle of analysis" to compile a large list of salient examples (as i've done).

You really think that the use of the word 'thus' both by Erdnase and Sanders is a salient example? It could only be salient if for example both use it a lot more often than most other authors. But you haven't even attempted to show that.

[lybrary]

If you think significance isn't important then here are all the 4, 5 , and 6 word phrases that both Erdnase and Gallaway share. The number in brackets tells you how often the match occurred comparing the two texts. As you can see there are quite a lot. And these are exact matches only. If one allows some variation the list gets many times longer.

==6==(7)
(2) as a matter of fact the | as a matter of fact the
(2) it will be seen that the | it will be seen that the
(1) in such a manner that the | in such a manner that the
(1) it is quite possible to get | it is quite possible to get
(1) the top and bottom of the | the top and bottom of the
(1) at the top and bottom and | at the top and bottom and
(1) to the fact that it is | to the fact that it is

==5==(37)
(2) a matter of fact the | a matter of fact the
(1) the color of the ink | the color of the ink
(1) the number of points to | the number of points to
(4) it will be seen that | it will be seen that
(2) will be seen that the | will be seen that the
(1) will always be the same | will always be the same
(1) which are essential to the | which are essential to the
(3) one card at a time | one card at a time
(1) a certain number of cards | a certain number of cards
(2) at the end of the | at the end of the
(1) it is quite possible to | it is quite possible to
(1) the same result can be | the same result can be
(1) should be made in the | should be made in the
(1) on top of the first | on top of the first
(1) the relative positions of the | the relative positions of the
(6) at the bottom of the | at the bottom of the
(2) and so on until all | and so on until all
(1) so that it will be | so that it will be
(1) the first and so on | the first and so on
(2) top and bottom of the | top and bottom of the
(1) it can be done in | it can be done in
(1) such a manner that the | such a manner that the
(1) in such a manner that | in such a manner that
(1) is quite possible to get | is quite possible to get
(2) the fact that it is | the fact that it is
(1) to the back of the | to the back of the
(1) the end of the card | the end of the card
(9) at the top and bottom | at the top and bottom
(2) of the face of the | of the face of the
(1) placed on top of the | placed on top of the
(1) of the nature of the | of the nature of the
(1) one of the most important | one of the most important
(2) it is one of the | it is one of the
(2) the top and bottom and | the top and bottom and
(2) be more or less than | be more or less than
(1) at the option of the | at the option of the
(1) attention to the fact that | attention to the fact that

==4==(163)
(1) and as a rule | and as a rule
(2) matter of fact the | matter of fact the
(4) of course it is | of course it is
(3) one of the most | one of the most
(1) from the printer s | from the printer s
(1) can be obtained from | can be obtained from
(1) color of the ink | color of the ink
(2) end for end and | end for end and
(1) number of points to | number of points to
(6) during the process of | during the process of
(1) cards can be readily | cards can be readily
(2) the width of the | the width of the
(1) there are many other | there are many other
(5) used in connection with | used in connection with
(2) by the use of | by the use of
(1) the only one to | the only one to
(10) it will be seen | it will be seen
(4) will be seen that | will be seen that
(2) be seen that the | be seen that the
(1) always be the same | always be the same
(63) for the purpose of | for the purpose of
(1) are essential to the | are essential to the
(3) card at a time | card at a time
(1) more than one card | more than one card
(11) the end of the | the end of the
(4) the use of the | the use of the
(1) certain number of cards | certain number of cards
(2) number of cards in | number of cards in
(1) at the end of | at the end of
(1) the end of a | the end of a
(24) the top of the | the top of the
(32) the bottom of the | the bottom of the
(3) of the first and | of the first and
(4) it is an excellent | it is an excellent
(51) the top and bottom | the top and bottom
(2) cards at a time | cards at a time
(2) for all practical purposes | for all practical purposes
(4) with the exception of | with the exception of
(16) on top of the | on top of the
(1) should be done by | should be done by
(4) it is quite possible | it is quite possible
(1) is quite possible to | is quite possible to
(6) it is impossible to | it is impossible to
(12) would have to be | would have to be
(1) it is very important | it is very important
(6) is placed on top | is placed on top
(2) be made in the | be made in the
(1) same result can be | same result can be
(6) in the same manner | in the same manner
(4) be put in the | be put in the
(2) manner in which the | manner in which the
(4) to a great extent | to a great extent
(3) the cards can be | the cards can be
(2) the process is very | the process is very
(1) and it is this | and it is this
(1) inch at the side | inch at the side
(1) is desirable or necessary | is desirable or necessary
(1) the same manner as | the same manner as
(1) in the direction of | in the direction of
(2) the most favorable conditions | the most favorable conditions
(3) that are to be | that are to be
(1) is the process of | is the process of
(3) any of the other | any of the other
(1) on the other side | on the other side
(1) top of the first | top of the first
(1) the face with the | the face with the
(1) relative positions of the | relative positions of the
(1) than the number of | than the number of
(13) and so on until | and so on until
(2) at the top and | at the top and
(2) so on until all | so on until all
(4) a great deal of | a great deal of
(3) twice the number of | twice the number of
(2) his knowledge of the | his knowledge of the
(2) that it is a | that it is a
(1) that it will be | that it will be
(1) the stock must be | the stock must be
(1) are found in the | are found in the
(1) to go through the | to go through the
(1) to one or two | to one or two
(1) is the fact that | is the fact that
(33) at the same time | at the same time
(1) counting the number of | counting the number of
(4) the number of cards | the number of cards
(1) where there is a | where there is a
(1) first and so on | first and so on
(2) and bottom of the | and bottom of the
(4) top and bottom of | top and bottom of
(9) it is necessary to | it is necessary to
(8) the time required for | the time required for
(2) can be done in | can be done in
(1) a manner that the | a manner that the
(2) a part of the | a part of the
(1) one side and the | one side and the
(8) is placed on the | is placed on the
(1) must be taken out | must be taken out
(1) is not more than | is not more than
(1) just as it is | just as it is
(1) such a manner that | such a manner that
(1) quite possible to get | quite possible to get
(1) and so on these | and so on these
(1) that it can be | that it can be
(1) in this particular case | in this particular case
(1) it is desired to | it is desired to
(2) in about the same | in about the same
(1) could be so imposed | could be so imposed
(1) would indicate that the | would indicate that the
(2) and there is no | and there is no
(1) an inch of space | an inch of space
(20) the face of the | the face of the
(1) there is not a | there is not a
(1) one of the other | one of the other
(1) particular attention to the | particular attention to the
(2) is ready for the | is ready for the
(1) of course it must | of course it must
(2) fact that it is | fact that it is
(2) see fig and the | see fig and the
(2) of the card and | of the card and
(3) in addition to the | in addition to the
(12) the back of the | the back of the
(1) end of the card | end of the card
(1) they come under the | they come under the
(1) both sides of the | both sides of the
(10) is one of the | is one of the
(2) be pressed against the | be pressed against the
(1) and it will be | and it will be
(2) the pressure of the | the pressure of the
(1) another form of the | another form of the
(1) of the lower one | of the lower one
(1) is taken off the | is taken off the
(1) and has a very | and has a very
(1) merely to show the | merely to show the
(1) that it is the | that it is the
(2) there are no more | there are no more
(1) the performance of the | the performance of the
(6) the nature of the | the nature of the
(1) to determine the number | to determine the number
(3) the difference in the | the difference in the
(1) is not the same | is not the same
(3) the value of the | the value of the
(2) to ascertain the number | to ascertain the number
(3) would be required to | would be required to
(1) of the most important | of the most important
(1) the ease with which | the ease with which
(1) it is well to | it is well to
(1) from right to left | from right to left
(4) to the number of | to the number of
(1) which will be the | which will be the
(1) will always be the | will always be the
(2) one of the very | one of the very
(1) at top bottom and | at top bottom and
(3) top and bottom and | top and bottom and
(1) it is one of | it is one of
(1) the color of the | the color of the
(1) the answer to the | the answer to the
(2) more or less than | more or less than
(1) the option of the | the option of the
(1) so that it will | so that it will
(4) the center of the | the center of the
(1) the purpose of this | the purpose of this
(1) order that you may | order that you may
(1) to the fact that | to the fact that

[Bob Coyne]

And I wouldn't call it "stopping in the middle of analysis" to compile a large list of salient examples (as i've done).

You really think that the use of the word 'thus' both by Erdnase and Sanders is a salient example? It could only be salient if for example both use it a lot more often than most other authors. But you haven't even attempted to show that.

Absolutely! "Thus" is a term of logic and is thus (!) used frequently in math, science, and engineering disciplines. Perhaps you missed the distinction I made between thematic examples (where the theme is significant rather than the word and lexical pattern/choice) vs the majority of cases I cite which also have varying degrees of linguistic significance. So "thus" marks a theme more than a linguistic pattern. I've updated my document to spell that out a bit more explicitly.

And right, I am claiming that "thus" is a science/engineering term and that both use it more frequently. And even if a particular word in that theme is not used more, the overall theme is invoked more frequently (i.e. all the works of that ilk such as axiom, prove, invariably, satisifies, rule, etc). And I agree that, these thematic clustering can be further understood and substantiated by looking at other texts. But the starting point is to identify the phenomena (i.e. the use of engineering terms) and to find examples to build up intuitions. It helps to know what you're looking for.

[Jack Shalom]

I once read that one of the most difficult things for an author to change is his or her paragraphing style. I have no idea if this is true. Has anyone done any analysis of this with regard to Erdnase?

[Bob Coyne]

If you think significance isn't important then here are all the 4, 5 , and 6 word phrases that both Erdnase and Gallaway share. The number in brackets tells you how often the match occurred comparing the two texts. As you can see there are quite a lot. And these are exact matches only. If one allows some variation the list gets many times longer.

Thanks for the list. Many of those seem at first blush to be the result of writing about detailed positions of things ("the top and the bottom of the"). I don't put much weight on the same sort of things in Sanders/Erdnase either. Likewise for very generic phrases unless the topics they're attached to form a strong correspondence or pattern that appears in both writer ("This OBJECTION is entirely OVERCOME BY THE USE OF the break, WHICH IS illustrated in the following blind shuffle"). It's the thematic and linguistically interesting patterns that should be the focus rather than very common generic phrases or subject-matter overlap (positions).

Given that Gallaway was a technician (printer) and writing a technically oriented book, I'd expect that he'd share some of the traits (focus on exactness and method) of academically trained engineers like Sanders and presumably Erdnase. So there should be some overlap in the use of terms in that area. I haven't read enough of Gallaway to have any opinion on the differences between the two in that respect. But that particular thematic overlap is just one of many that show up in the writings of Sanders and Erdnase.

[jkeyes1000]

The art of writing is mostly emulative. A "hack" will simply use terms that he found in a book or a paper he read. Only passionate writers bother to invent their own phrases, so it is very difficult to identify the "voice" of the average journalist.

In reading Erdnase (I have not read Sanders or Gallaway), I find him very derivative. He is evidently acquainted with celebrated authors, and has a Poesque demeanor and vocabulary. But then, so did hundreds of others in that age.

He has picked up some pithy expressions from other sources as well. Perhaps from the society that he was born to. It is the special combination of these influences that one ought to try to demonstrate.

In Chris' list above, there are indeed many common words and phrases (which are in the aggregate, quite significant), but the two that strike me as distinctive are, "it is desired to" and "could be so imposed".

[lybrary]

And right, I am claiming that "thus" is a science/engineering term and that both use it more frequently.

Where is the evidence? You claim they use it more frequently but you don't compare it against other authors. How do you know they use 'thus' more frequently? Gallaway uses 'thus' plenty of times.

[Bob Coyne]

And right, I am claiming that "thus" is a science/engineering term and that both use it more frequently.

Where is the evidence? You claim they use it more frequently but you don't compare it against other authors. How do you know they use 'thus' more frequently? Gallaway uses 'thus' plenty of times.

I think it's more fruitful to identify and find instances of patterns to size up and judge what you're looking at as opposed to going down a rabbit hole insisting that everything be "validated" statistically. That's not to say that *some* of those judgments can't be further validated (or have doubt cast on them) by further textual analysis or statistical tests. But even there, it's necessary to act on intuitive judgements in order to refine your models and interpret your results etc. As I said earlier, if you get a nonsensical machine translation are you going to throw away your own judgment just because it came out of some statistical model?

Anyway, to switch hats for a moment... just doing a quick check of occurrences of "thus" in Sanders' Montana article vs articles by other authors in the full book shows that Sanders garners one third of the pages containing "thus" while he only constituted 10% of the book. And in Mine Timbering, Sanders has 30% of the pages with "thus" while taking up about 40% of the book. So that little test gives some validation to the intuition that Sanders uses "thus" more frequently than the normal non-technical writer. And that he's roughly on par with his engineering compatriots.

It would be informative to do some more serious quantitative analysis of how that sort of thing plays out in other texts etc. But none of that argues against gaining intuitions and making judgments about what's there right in front of your eyes. So a key part of that is identifying and collecting relevant examples to highlight the shared themes, words, patterns, etc as they appear in the texts. Sanders texts have yielded many riches. And the correspondences with Erdnase, to my eyes, are very significant. I haven't seen anything anywhere nearly comparable in examples culled from Gallaway.

This qualitative vs quantitative discussion reminds me of the anecdote of the police officer who comes across a drunk crawling around on the ground near a streetlamp. The drunk tells the officer that he's looking for his keys. The officer asks where he dropped them and the drunk points to somewhere in the distance. The officer asks why he's looking under the streetlamp, and the drunk answers "because this is where the light is". The point being that insisting that inquiry and judgments be limited to quantitative tools/metrics can lead you to ignoring the obvious and missing what you're looking for.

[lybrary]

Nobody says that everything has to be quantified, but those things which can be easily quantified (counting instances of usage in text are easy to quantify) should be quantified, not to religiously believe every number, but to support your general argument. Not quantifying what can be quantified is closing your eyes to available facts. The reason you ignore the numbers is because they refute your 'intuitive' claims. Most of what you think is significant turns out to be not significant at all once you compare it against other authors.

It amazes me that you seem to have no ability with numbers. On one hand you have determined that Sanders uses 'thus' about as often as other technical authors, yet you don't compare this to Erdnase. How often does he use it? What good is it to only calculate one side of the equation? If Sanders use of 'thus' is about normal, matches what other technical authors do, how exactly does that make him Erdnase? It doesn't, because it is about what we would expect from any technical author. You have to find features where Erdnase and your candidate exhibit use beyond what is normal. If you go back to the table I posted you will see that Erdnase uses 'subterfuge' and 'hard luck' about 100 times more frequent than the average, and about 200 times more frequent he is using 'end for end'. Those are features where Erdnase distinguishes himself from others. And Gallaway matches those unusual high frequencies for these features. Please demonstrate this with 'thus' and Sanders for us.

[Bob Coyne]

In Chris' list above, there are indeed many common words and phrases (which are in the aggregate, quite significant), but the two that strike me as distinctive are, "it is desired to" and "could be so imposed".

I agree those phrases are relatively distinctive in the context of the Gallaway/Erdnase ngram list. But looking at common word sequences only turns up a very small fraction of what's actually interesting or significant.

Though sometimes finding something somewhat interesting of that sort can lead to the full text which can then reveal more. I've noticed that happening quite often when analyzing Sanders/Erdnase, where a small fragment leads to something larger and more significant. I've found that most interesting correspondences involve larger patterns, word choice, variations, thematic/stylistic combos, etc that don't show up by directly looking through a peep-hole but require following those to the larger text.

[lybrary]

I once read that one of the most difficult things for an author to change is his or her paragraphing style. I have no idea if this is true. Has anyone done any analysis of this with regard to Erdnase?

Do you mean with paragraphing style how long (how many words or how many sentences) a paragraph is? Or do you mean something else? Sentence length and paragraph length have all been used by stylometrists in the past, but they have for the most part been replaced with other features such as function words or POS (part of speech), because they have proven generally more reliable.

[Leonard Hevia]

Here is a comparison of Gallaway's alliteration:
-efficiency expert
- constant companion
- care and caution
- patience and perseverance
- grand and glorious
- venerable and venerated
- shimmering silver and royal red
- the department with the pep - the department with the pup
- royal reception
- high honors--this is not alliteration

As opposed to Sanders and Erdnase:

Erdnase : PASSION for PLAY
Erdnase : PRETENSIONS of PIETY
Erdnase : PURIFIED PRODIGALS
Erdnase : disclosures of their former WILES and WICKEDNESS
Sanders : mining letter: because of the WICKED WASTE of ink resulting therefrom.
Sanders : FOUND FAME and WORTHILY WON his WAY
Sanders : PRIMROSE PATH
Sanders : of all the BOLD, BAD men and TOUGHEST of TOUGH characters
Sanders : DOLEFULLY DECREPIT
Sanders : has found fame and WORTHILY WON his WAY
Sanders : STOP him until his SAY was SAID

As Bob pointed out, most of Gallway's alliteration is stiff. There is no variation with short and long vowels as in "wiles and wickedness" from Erdnase and "bold and bad" from Sanders. So far Chris' Gallaway writing examples are still anemic. To wit there are no examples of dialect that Erdnase, Sanders, and Mark Twain utilized to create more believable characters in their compositions. And where is the French?

[lybrary]

Sanders : FOUND FAME and WORTHILY WON his WAY
Sanders : PRIMROSE PATH
Sanders : of all the BOLD, BAD men and TOUGHEST of TOUGH characters
Sanders : DOLEFULLY DECREPIT
Sanders : has found fame and WORTHILY WON his WAY
Sanders : STOP him until his SAY was SAID

Can you point out which of these are from his technical text and which from his poems?

[Bob Coyne]

Nobody says that everything has to be quantified, but those things which can be easily quantified (counting instances of usage in text are easy to quantify) should be quantified, not to religiously believe every number, but to support your general argument. Not quantifying what can be quantified is closing your eyes to available facts. The reason you ignore the numbers is because they refute your 'intuitive' claims. Most of what you think is significant turns out to be not significant at all once you compare it against other authors.

It amazes me that you seem to have no ability with numbers. On one hand you have determined that Sanders uses 'thus' about as often as other technical authors, yet you don't compare this to Erdnase. How often does he use it? What good is it to only calculate one side of the equation? If Sanders use of 'thus' is about normal, matches what other technical authors do, how exactly does that make him Erdnase? It doesn't, because it is about what we would expect from any technical author. You have to find features where Erdnase and your candidate exhibit use beyond what is normal. If you go back to the table I posted you will see that Erdnase uses 'subterfuge' and 'hard luck' about 100 times more frequent than the average, and about 200 times more frequent he is using 'end for end'. Those are features where Erdnase distinguishes himself from others. And Gallaway matches those unusual high frequencies for these features. Please demonstrate this with 'thus' and Sanders for us.

You had said "without some measure of significance Bob's list is meaningless. " So you seem to be backing off that now. Great!

I agree it's sometimes useful to quantify things. Not sure why you insist I say otherwise. In fact I even gave examples of some stats that I thought would be interesting to look at (eg words related to engineering/science training like axiom, proof, thus, etc). One might find other related clusters in the process.

What, in particular, do I claim that's refuted when compared with other authors? I'm not sure even what i've claimed except that the correspondences are quite numerous and compelling. In any case. it should be a goal to refine/correct intuitions with facts in whatever form they arrive in. There's a large number of linguistic and thematic correspondences with Sanders/Erdnase. I'm interested in anything (data, qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis) that sheds more light on it. The best possible thing would be more texts written by Sanders.

No ability with numbers? Spare me the insults. You have no idea of what you're talking about in that regard.

With the mini "thus" experiment. I was addressing just one side of the equation, providing some easily obtained data to support my generalizatiion/intuition that techies like Sanders used "thus" more than the norm (in a relatively controlled way as measured in those two books of course). I said "So that little test gives some validation to the intuition that Sanders uses "thus" more frequently than the normal non-technical writer. And that he's roughly on par with his engineering compatriots." I wasn't attempting to show the same with Erdnase. That clearly would be needed along with more texts etc to support that aspect of the correspondence. So you seem to be reading more into what I said than i actually said. Anyway, I'm not against testing intuitions when possible and am puzzled why you claim that.

Comparing relative frequencies of "subterfuge" to "thus" is pointless. One is a rare word and the other is a basic word that everyone knows and uses to some degree but is likely correlated with a certain background and mode of thought. You seemed to be ignoring what I said about theme-centric words like "thus" versus more linguistically significant/distinctive phrases, words, patterns, etc.

[Leonard Hevia]

Sanders : FOUND FAME and WORTHILY WON his WAY
Sanders : PRIMROSE PATH
Sanders : of all the BOLD, BAD men and TOUGHEST of TOUGH characters
Sanders : DOLEFULLY DECREPIT
Sanders : has found fame and WORTHILY WON his WAY
Sanders : STOP him until his SAY was SAID

Can you point out which of these are from his technical text and which from his poems?

I will hold off on my answer until you have answered my questions:

Where are the examples of Gallaway's dialect, the vernacular speech, and where is the French? There is obviously more to The Expert than just technical writing. There is also a character with a sense of humor within its pages.

[lybrary]

Since you guys aren't very precise in your data I have checked myself. All of the Sanders alliterations in my quoted post above are from the "Twenty Fifth Anniversary Reunion" book, which has a comedic bent and is therefore not at all a fair comparison when it comes to alliterations. You have to take the technical writing of Sanders to make a fair comparison with Erdnase.

But there is an even larger problem with that book. You can't at all use that for a linguistic comparison. Here is a quote from the preface:

A large part of the credit for this work is due to Wilbur E. Sanders, who, as Class Poet and Class Historian, has prepared the pleasing jingles for each sober-faced photograph, and has whipped into shape the multifarious and varied autobiographical sketches furnished by the individual members of the Class.

"furnished by the individual members of the Class". In other words, each member submitted an autobiographical sketch which Sanders edited. He didn't write them. So to take examples from these texts for a linguistic comparison is completely unacceptable, because you do not know which parts are from the person who wrote it and which parts are from Sanders himself editing it. You guys aren't even following the most basic requirements, to use text that was written by the candidate. And you are preaching about science. What a joke.

[Bob Coyne]

Since you guys aren't very precise in your data I have checked myself. All of the Sanders alliterations in my quoted post above are from the "Twenty Fifth Anniversary Reunion" book, which has a comedic bent and is therefore not at all a fair comparison when it comes to alliterations. You have to take the technical writing of Sanders to make a fair comparison with Erdnase.

But there is an even larger problem with that book. You can't at all use that for a linguistic comparison. Here is a quote from the preface:

A large part of the credit for this work is due to Wilbur E. Sanders, who, as Class Poet and Class Historian, has prepared the pleasing jingles for each sober-faced photograph, and has whipped into shape the multifarious and varied autobiographical sketches furnished by the individual members of the Class.

"furnished by the individual members of the Class". In other words, each member submitted an autobiographical sketch which Sanders edited. He didn't write them. So to take examples from these texts for a linguistic comparison is completely unacceptable, because you do not know which parts are from the person who wrote it and which parts are from Sanders himself editing it. You guys aren't even following the most basic requirements, to use text that was written by the candidate. And you are preaching about science. What a joke.

ok, great time for insults...somehow i knew we'd get there.

Sanders wrote all of that stuff.

Briefly, sanders got info from the various people and incorporated the info (or sometimes quotes which he includes as quotes) into what *he* wrote.

You seem to have a tin ear and inability to do basic textual analysis. Maybe that's why you're so insistent on trying to quantify everything. But unfortunately that won't lead anywhere without basic linguistic or common sense. I think this conversation (?) has to end now.

[lybrary]

Briefly, sanders got info from the various people and incorporated the info (or sometimes quotes which he includes as quotes) into what *he* wrote.

Last time I checked 'autobiographical' means 'written by the person himself', otherwise it wouldn't be auto- just biographical. Major oversight Bob. That renders your analysis as completely false. Must go back and eliminate anything that came from that book.

[Leonard Hevia]

Comedic bent can certainly be an aspect of alliteration. Sanders used the biographical information such as birthdates and scholastic achievements submitted by those graduates to compose his own humorous biographical sketches of each individual. Given his writing style when you read those biographies, it is obvious that Sanders composed those alliterative terms.

Instead of submitting writing examples from Gallaway that are comparable to what Bob and others have contributed to this thread on Sanders, you have chosen--understandable since you are without any other recourse--to go on the offensive and begin to question the veracity of the submitted samples on Sanders. How is that for alliteration?

The only joke here--that is also on the consumers who have purchased your $45.00 Gallawy ebook--is that you are marketing a product relying on linguistic pseudo science to create the illusion of academic authenticity, thin evidence, and the ignorance of the consumer in order to make a buck.

[jkeyes1000]

Who (on either side of this contention) has considered the impact of an editor on the style of the writing?

We can suppose that EATCT was not edited by anyone but the author, as it was self published. And Sanders' writings at school were probably not tampered with. But the books that were published by other entities must have been redacted.

Much of the giddiness and frivolity of the author's character might have been expunged from technical works for commercial companies.

I don't think it is a valid criticism to say that Galloway was less amusing than Erdnase, unless you can prove that his published work was pure and unaltered.

Likewise in regard to alliterations. Some editors abhor them, equating them with bad puns. Especially in a technical manual, the editor might very well frown upon such nonsense.

Better to judge the substantive core of each work, and allow for discrepancies of wit. I can't tell you how many times my jokes have been ruined by editors!

[Jack Shalom]

I once read that one of the most difficult things for an author to change is his or her paragraphing style. I have no idea if this is true. Has anyone done any analysis of this with regard to Erdnase?

Do you mean with paragraphing style how long (how many words or how many sentences) a paragraph is? Or do you mean something else? Sentence length and paragraph length have all been used by stylometrists in the past, but they have for the most part been replaced with other features such as function words or POS (part of speech), because they have proven generally more reliable.

I believe the contention has to do with how an idea is "chunked." Not necessarily how long, though that *might* be a strong indication. More like how many ideas are packed into a paragraph, and what does an author hope to accomplish in a single paragraph.

[Bob Coyne]

Briefly, sanders got info from the various people and incorporated the info (or sometimes quotes which he includes as quotes) into what *he* wrote.

Last time I checked 'autobiographical' means 'written by the person himself', otherwise it wouldn't be auto- just biographical. Major oversight Bob. That renders your analysis as completely false. Must go back and eliminate anything that came from that book.

The bios are written by Sanders.

For example, a snippet from Sanders writing his little bio of his classmate WHITMAN:

"However, one supposedly amusing night experience with which the WRITER [eg SANDERS!] was slightly connected along with WHITMAN and Walter Peet, and possibly Joe Ladew, was the placing of red fire behind the porches of certain houses which were hidden away among the trees that then covered portions of Washington Heights"

Also, it's obvious if you've read enough of Sanders and are sensitive to his writing voice (a prerequisite for analyzing his writing and connection with Erdnase), you'd be able to tell that "one supposedly amusing night experience" and "slightly connected" are typical Sanders' humor.

But even that level of intuition is not necessary, since the passage refers to Whitman in the 3rd person along with a separate mention of "the writer" (i.e. Sanders). It's clearly Sanders writing about an adventure he was involved with Whitman.

As Leonard Hevia says, the "autobiographical" stuff consists of the dry facts updating Sanders as to where they're working, how much they weigh, etc or an occasional quote where they tell sanders (which he presents as a quote) as to what they're up to recently. The narratives and bios themselves are written by Sanders.

For an example of a quote Sanders incorporates in his sketches, he writes of Doolittle:

"HE REPORTS [e.g Doolittle] that some of the professors said he was a good student, while others differend in their opinion. As an offset to the latter possibility he writes: 'At any rate, I was and have been a hard worker, which sometimes overbalances the scalle where brains may be lacking.' [quoting Doolittle] And we all know full well how necessary the work is, whatever, in our modesty, we may state as to the possession of brains.

And aside from all that, whenever I pulled a quote, I always looked at the context. I suppose it's possible I made a mistake here and there, but nothing compared to your misinterpretation.

[Bob Coyne]

Sanders : FOUND FAME and WORTHILY WON his WAY
Sanders : PRIMROSE PATH
Sanders : of all the BOLD, BAD men and TOUGHEST of TOUGH characters
Sanders : DOLEFULLY DECREPIT
Sanders : has found fame and WORTHILY WON his WAY
Sanders : STOP him until his SAY was SAID

Can you point out which of these are from his technical text and which from his poems?

To answer this open question...all of these are from his college reunion prose. None are from technical text or poems

[Bob Coyne]

Who (on either side of this contention) has considered the impact of an editor on the style of the writing?

We can suppose that EATCT was not edited by anyone but the author, as it was self published. And Sanders' writings at school were probably not tampered with. But the books that were published by other entities must have been redacted.

Different than redacting humor, but I noticed a couple strange spellings in one of the sanders mining articles. I think "align" consistently spelled as "aline". And there was another of that sort where I checked and Sanders spelled it differently (and normally) in the montana or college reunion text vs the mining text. So that seems like a possible editorial decision by someone other than sanders.

[lybrary]

...but nothing compared to your misinterpretation.

My 'misinterpretation' is a straight quote from the preface of the book. These are autobiographical sketches furnished by the members which were edited but obviously not written by Sanders, otherwise the preface would have stated that he wrote them based on facts submitted by the members. But that is not what it says. Some articles included in the book are clearly marked with the author's name. For example:

- History of the Class: W. E. Sanders
- The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Reunion and Dinner: R. V. Norris

But the autobiographical sketches do not show an author name, because the author name is the name in the title itself, it would be reduntant. If the author would have been Sanders his name would be mentioned. He did not write these. I am sure he added some of his own recollections with various class mates, but to claim he is the author of these sketches is utterly false. As the preface clearly states, these autobiographical sketches were furnished by the members themselves and Sanders merely edited them. The fact that you can't understand what is written plainly and clearly in the preface is more than troubling. No wonder that it is impossible to have a real conversation here when folks can't accept simple facts printed black on white. It is pointless to argue about linguistic features when you don't know if they came from Sanders or somebody else or are a complex mix of two authors.

[lybrary]

To answer this open question...all of these are from his college reunion prose. None are from technical text or poems

It is not his prose. He merely edited that prose. Stating that it is his is incorrect.

[jkeyes1000]

I think it would be a mistake to suppose that writers in the nineteenth century were as careless as their modern day counterparts. When they say "autobiographical", they likely mean precisely that. I have not seen this volume, but I would guess that, like most "reunions", it's purpose was to appeal to the vanity of the alumni. That they were allowed to express their own views is virtually beyond doubt.

[lybrary]

The book in question has been digitize by Google and is freely available here https://books.google.com/books?id=pURGA ... GE&f=false

[Bob Coyne]

...but nothing compared to your misinterpretation.

My 'misinterpretation' is a straight quote from the preface of the book. These are autobiographical sketches furnished by the members which were edited but obviously not written by Sanders, otherwise the preface would have stated that he wrote them based on facts submitted by the members. But that is not what it says. Some articles included in the book are clearly marked with the author's name. For example:
.

You're completely wrong. Anyone with an ear can tell they're all written by the same person. Of course Sanders sometimes incorporates facts into his sketches provided by the subjects as a jumping off point or as a quote. That initial statement you quoted (about Sanders whipping into shape the various autobiographical sketches that he received) just means it was raw source material (including the dry facts sections of the sketches).

But the writing is by Sanders (who refers to himself here and often elsewhere as the HISTORIAN). I gave examples already where it was absolutely clear by both pure logic (how Sanders referred to himself vs the erstwhile subject) and by the humorous writing style. Here's another about his classmate Hollis. It's essentially a paragraph by Sanders about himself (a topic he seems to enjoy writing about), and quite humorous.

These vagrant and vagabond Mining Engineers are tremendously handy and delightful friends to meet; and often the HISTORIAN has had reason to bless the happy ill-luck that has driven them away to examine some purely imaginary, fictitious mine in some out-of-the way, forgotten corner of the wilderness, for, through their seemingly ill-starred luck, and the wander-lust of strenuous professional endeavor, have occurred some of the most delightful reunions with classmates in out-of-the-way plaves to which he [i.e. Historian/Sanders] at times has been consigned. In this wise did Sanders meet Hollis at Joplin, Mo., where the latter was engaged on some mine examinations within the zinc fields, in 1899; and in similar manner, during one of his own excursions into the uncharted wilderness did the historian chance to meet him at an out-of-the-way camp called Chicago, in Illinois. With regard to the meeting in Joplin, Hollis has always accused the scribe of flirting with the waitress or the cook or somebody; but since he did not bring all of the proofs and records back from that journey into the unknown, the same is not proven, and though the flirting is barely possible, it may have not happened.

If after reading this you think this Hollis guy wrote an anecdote from Sanders' viewpoint (funny, how all the sketches seemed to do that!) and with his same trademark humor (again, an amazing coincidence), then I really don't know what to say.

Ok, just one more. This is like shooting fish in a barrel... For the sketch about classmate Cozzens, there's a typically humorous intro Sanders paragraph, two paragraphs quoting a Cozzens letter, and then a Sanders paragraph starting with "more of the letter might be given, but I refrain." Yeah, it makes total sense that Cozzens wrote that. And then, at that point Sanders goes into the dry stuff, though he intersperses with some more humor "in his details, he [cozzens] states that his disposition is the same as usual if not more so". Again this cozzens guy who you apparently thing wrote it sure likes to quote himself! Anyway, sarcasm aside, this is all plain as day and it amazes me that anyone could not understand if they took the time to actually read it.

[Bob Coyne]

I think it would be a mistake to suppose that writers in the nineteenth century were as careless as their modern day counterparts. When they say "autobiographical", they likely mean precisely that. I have not seen this volume, but I would guess that, like most "reunions", it's purpose was to appeal to the vanity of the alumni. That they were allowed to express their own views is virtually beyond doubt.

The writers in question are Sanders and his cronies. Aside from a couple dry academic admin parts, pretty much everything in there (including that little intro) is written in a humorous and poking fun mode. The "whipped into shape" should be interpreted in that vein and taken with a couple grains of salt. Read through it (especially Sanders' sketches) and you'll see.

btw, this was 20th century (1910).

[lybrary]

If after reading this you think this Hollis guy wrote an anecdote from Sanders' viewpoint (funny, how all the sketches seemed to do that!) and with his same trademark humor (again, an amazing coincidence), then I really don't know what to say.

Even assuming all of that you do not know if this is purely Sanders writing or if it is a complex mix of two authors or more. That is why it can't be used in a linguistic analysis, at least not in a serious one.

[Leonard Hevia]

Hear, hear, Bob! It should be plainly obvious to anyone who reads this Twenty Fifth Anniversary School of Mines reunion that Sanders wrote those biographies in his own inimitable style. There are also the poems he wrote celebrating the reunion, and there's more: "Sanders...has prepared the pleasing jingles for each sober faced photograph..." In other words, Sanders wrote the poems under each classmate photograph, and they are chock full of alliteration!

From the "pomes" To the Class of Eighty-Five ,The Days of Eighty-Five, and To Our College Days:
1. As in review to seem, like visions fair, the WARP and WOOF of some enchanting dream
2. SWEET the SONGS of our college days
3. From California's SUNNY SLOPES, where SPREAD her SANDS of gold
4. Again we live our college days of STRENUOUS SPORT and toil, how SWIFTLY SPED those long past hours of midnight-burning oil
5. Our happy GLORIOUS GOLDEN years

From the prose:
After much allege POKING on the PART of the PRESIDENT

A few examples of Sanders poems under each classmate photograph:
1. Mr. E.J.H. Amy: To begin: There's the AMIABLE AMY. He's SELIM and SELENDER, but, blame me!
2. Fred P. Bemis: and the BACON and BEANS 'neath the far Western pines
3. George Cary: WORKING on your WALLS sublime
4. F.S. Clark: And WHILE through the WORLD
5. Harmon Cozzens: LONG he's LIVED...That he's PLAYED well his PART
6. C.H. Detwiller: May yours be HEALTH and HAPPINESS
7. Charles H. Doolittle: ROCK-RIBBED they RISE to guard the WEALTH WITHIN

It should be obvious from these examples that Sanders had an Erdnasian command of alliteration.

[jkeyes1000]

I think it would be a mistake to suppose that writers in the nineteenth century were as careless as their modern day counterparts. When they say "autobiographical", they likely mean precisely that. I have not seen this volume, but I would guess that, like most "reunions", it's purpose was to appeal to the vanity of the alumni. That they were allowed to express their own views is virtually beyond doubt.

The writers in question are Sanders and his cronies. Aside from a couple dry academic admin parts, pretty much everything in there (including that little intro) is written in a humorous and poking fun mode. The "whipped into shape" should be interpreted in that vein and taken with a couple grains of salt. Read through it (especially Sanders' sketches) and you'll see.

btw, this was 20th century (1910).

It may be that some, or even most, of the graduates preferred to let Sanders effectively satirise their biographies, but it is not impossible that he wrote them in strict accordance with their wishes.

By "whipped up", I infer that Sanders tweaked their stories, not conceived them.

Again, it may be that many subjects simply couldn't be bothered to write their own entries. But we will never really know what was prescribed and what was invented by Sanders. Therefore, an analysis of the words and phrases employed would be of little relevance.

Surely, the tone and the manner of the writing is that of Sanders, his "voice" as the sort of master of ceremonies. But we cannot credit him with all of the levity that he alludes to. Nor necessarily the lingo he uses.

I think it probable that he adhered as closely as possible to each outline, merely elaborating upon it, and converting it to an editorial narrative.