32K words is much easier to check visually. And such a word list would
probably compress to 150KB which can be embedded in devices easily
enough.
"Before we begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words. And
here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak! Thank you."
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Bill Frantz <frantz(_at_)pwpconsult(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 4/28/15 at 10:01 AM, phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com (Phillip
Hallam-Baker) wrote:
32768 words is very do-able. Hunspell English has 621,180 by the
looks. Not quite a million but it is quite likely we could get there
with affixation rules, plurals, etc.
Do remember that, as languages go, English has a rather large vocabulary. I
don't know of any languages where 32K is a problem, but when over 100K or
so, there is a problem. Also, even in English, we may want to limit the
words to common words with different pronunciations, avoiding the there,
their, they're problem.
While this group probably won't pick the word list, we do need to keep it
relatively small.
Cheers - Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | There are now so many exceptions to the
408-356-8506 | Fourth Amendment that it operates only by
www.pwpconsult.com | accident. - William Hugh Murray
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp