em-bypass-2
1,979
edits
[unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
This word count is questionable, because there are dual and plural forms. Should the dual be counted as 2? | This word count is questionable, because there are dual and plural forms. Should the dual be counted as 2? | ||
One way is counting only the singular forms of the word "sea", that is 33 occurrences. In that case, the "land":"sea" word count ratio is 12:33. And 12+33=45. The first question is why is it not 100? Why is it not already in percentage? Wouldn't it seem to be less of a coincidence if there | One way is counting only the singular forms of the word "sea", that is 33 occurrences. In that case, the "land":"sea" word count ratio is 12:33. And 12+33=45. The first question is why is it not 100? Why is it not already in percentage? Wouldn't it seem to be less of a coincidence if there were 71 occurrences of "water" and 29 occurrences of "land"? | ||
Let's do some math and convert the ratio to percentage to see whether we get the desired 29% land and 71% water percentages: | Let's do some math and convert the ratio to percentage to see whether we get the desired 29% land and 71% water percentages: |