Francis Tyers <fty...@prompsit.com> writes: > El dg 11 de 11 de 2012 a les 14:11 +0100, en/na Per Tunedal va escriure: >> Hi, >> OK. I just thought the other way around: >> >> Because coverage is so low, it would be fruitful to generate >> translations for unknown words. >> >> In the next step, I intended to add the most frequent words, bit by bit. > > Great! > >> As you have pointed out, it's much more effective to have a word in the >> dictionaries than to generate it by some rule. Thus the gain is >> obviously largest from adding the most frequent compounds and >> derivations explicitly in the dictionaries. But it's still nice to get >> translations of the more rare compounds and derivations. > > Bad investment in terms of time. You want your work to have maximum, not > minimum impact. Thus, work by frequency. Add the frequent stuff first.
As https://xkcd.com/1133/ shows, with only the 1000 most frequent words in English you can explain rocket science ;-) -- Kevin Brubeck Unhammer GPG: 0x766AC60C ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_nov _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
