{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.041916167664670656, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0023952095808383233, 'mean_word_length': 5.102189781021898, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A corpus-linguistic analysis of English-ic vs-ical adjectives

1. It turns out to be very difficult to detect any pattern governing the distribution of suffixes: when does an adjective end in -ic only (cf acrobatic/*acrobatical) and when does it end in -ical only (*zoologic/zoological)? 2. There are cases where one adjective root takes both suffixes (electric(al), historic(al) etc), which raise further, even more complex questions: a. are the two forms that constitute a pair synonymous? Put differently, to what degree are the adjective forms differentiated today? – if they are not synonymous, b. does each suffix contribute some constant meaning component according to which the adjectives constituting a pair can be reliably distinguished or is there some other possibility to distinguish between the different adjective forms?