Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Gourbi <gourbi@freenet.de>
Newsgroups: fr.lettres.langue.anglaise
Subject: Re: bloviated
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2021 11:58:53 +0100
Message-ID: <soi61d$nqb$1@solani.org>
References: <sod61v$rjt$1@solani.org> <sodc1q$1p7d$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <sofhea$8a4$1@solani.org> <soflbq$1h7b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2021 10:58:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="24395"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.3.2
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <soflbq$1h7b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
X-User-ID: eJwNycEBwCAIA8CVKglgxxEk+4/Q3vccsaKT4UGXa0qNKsNBbV98B6T6ahPKaXj+99RFZJqdDzDKEVo=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O2h2WcAZ2OY1qd8XVS2oWzEkCIA=
Bytes: 2649
Lines: 39

Am 04.12.2021 um 13:02 schrieb Hibou:
> Le 04/12/2021 à 10:55, Gourbi a écrit :
>> Am 03.12.2021 um 16:10 schrieb Hibou:
>>> Le 03/12/2021 à 13:28, Gourbi a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Dans l'article de Jim Farber du 03/12/2021 dans The Guardian, 
>>>> celui-ci utilise le terme américain « bloviated » que je ne 
>>>> connaissais pas jusqu'ici [...]
>>>>
>>>> Ce terme est-il couramment utilisé ?
>>>
>>> Non, ça gagne du terrain, mais ce n'est pas courant (moi, GNV).
>>
>> Ce n'est pas courant au Royaume-Uni, si je comprends bien.
> 
> Ni aux É-U, semble-t-il. Voilà une comparaison avec quelques termes 
> apparentés :
> 
> <https://www.cjoint.com/c/KLel7VufxOs>
> 
>> Que signifie « GNV » ?
> 
> Google Ngram Viewer :
> 
> <https://books.google.com/ngrams>

Merci.
Mais peut-on vraiment faire confiance à cet outil ?

Criticism
The data set has been criticized for its reliance upon inaccurate OCR, 
an overabundance of scientific literature, and for including large 
numbers of incorrectly dated and categorized texts.[16][17] Because of 
these errors, and because it is uncontrolled for bias[18] (such as the 
increasing amount of scientific literature, which causes other terms to 
appear to decline in popularity), it is risky to use this corpus to 
study language or test theories.[19] Since the data set does not include 
metadata, it may not reflect general linguistic or cultural change[20] 
and can only hint at such an effect.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ngram_Viewer#Criticism)