On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 08:12:14PM +0100, Jimmy O'Regan wrote: > 2011/7/3 Keld Jørn Simonsen <k...@keldix.com>: > > Hi! > > > > I am still stuck with this problem - I cannot progress my Apertium work > > without a solution to this problem. > > > > When you write a question to a mailing list and get no answer, you can > usually take that as a sign that nobody understood the question, and > are waiting to see if someone else has understood. Rephrase the > question. What are you talking about? Introducing new lexical > ambiguity (i.e., in the monodix)? or introducing new translations for > words that are already in the bidix? or is it something else?
Well, I did that in the thread then: > Re: [Apertium-stuff] disabling new homonyms > From: Jimmy O'Regan <joregan@gm...> - 2010-10-29 22:22 > > 2010/10/29 Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld@...>: > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:57:23PM +0100, Jimmy O'Regan wrote: > >> 2010/10/29 Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld@...>: > >> > Hi > >> > > >> > I am not sure of the status of a way to disabling homonyms > >> > introduced by new entries in a monodix. An example is that I have > >> > about 40000 lemmas in the swedish monodix, and I would like not > >> > to intrude on already existing rules. I would only intrude > >> > the old lemmas with a new homonym, all other words should not > >> > make problems for existing correct translations. > >> > > >> > What is the best way to achieve this? > >> > >> Without retraining the tagger, there's no way to do that. There are > >> preference rules, but those only filter on tags. I think it might be > >> useful to extend the tagger to have a mechanism to make certain tag > >> choices for specific lemmas, and not too difficult to implement, > >> based > >> on the existing preference rules, but it's not going to be done in a > >> hurry. > > > > I don't want to exclude the new offending complete lemma, but only > > those surface forms of the new lemma, that gives homonyms of > > the old existing lemmas. This would address a concern of Jacob's > > about introoducing new erroneous surface forms - om my 40.000 swedish > > lemmas. > > Yes, yes, I understood what you meant. So that person actually understood what I meant the first time - good to know that there is at least one person (plus my mother) that understands me - although the understanding may crumble over time. But there above you have a further refinement of my problem. best regards keld ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
