Hi Marc,
OK, thank you for the information, then I will leave it untouched for now.
(In the meantime I only completed a few lemma names.)
wolfgang
Gesendet: Montag, 09. Juli 2018 um 14:17 Uhr
Von: "Marc Riera Irigoyen" <marc.riera.irigo...@gmail.com>
An: apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net
Betreff: Re: [Apertium-stuff] too many double entries in apertium-eng
Von: "Marc Riera Irigoyen" <marc.riera.irigo...@gmail.com>
An: apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net
Betreff: Re: [Apertium-stuff] too many double entries in apertium-eng
Hello,
I think it may have been my fault, at least part of it. Last year I added a lot of new entries as part of the eng-cat pair and had much less experience than now, so I may have missed existing entries and added wrong ones such as the examples above. They may also be wrong entries from the cym-eng pair, which is being upgraded and has quite a lot of errors on both sides.
As the most likely source of errors, I will do my best to prevent this from happening and remove the duplicates, it is the least I can do.
Sorry for the inconvenience!
Marc
El dl., 9 jul. 2018, 13:46, Wolfgang <wolfgang...@web.de> va escriure:
Hi,
I did a check on apertium-eng and found about 300 double entries, especially verbs. Two years ago I removed all double entries (lemma + PoS with different pardef if one is unnecessary or wrong) from apertium-eng.
Some of the double entries are like this:
<e lm="remarry"> <i>remarr</i><par n="appl/y__vblex"/></e>
<e lm="remarry"> <i>remarry</i><par n="accept__vblex"/></e>
(the second new one ist wrong because pp is remarried and not remarryed, as fare as I know)
<e lm="swell"> <i>sw</i><par n="sw/ell__vblex"/></e>
<e lm="swell"> <i>swel</i><par n="spel/l__vblex"/></e>
(the second new one, in my dictionary I didn't find swelt as pp of swell? only swelled and swollen)
I can remove all the double entries again but unfortunately apertium-eng now belongs to a released language pair. What's the best way now to remove these double entries and how can we ensure that no one will add these again in future, because he uses this entry in his (unreleaded) language pair?
In the next days I will try to remove a few of the wrong ones so we can watch what happend. I think if we can find the source we have the possibility to correct this directly in the source dictionary so that this will not copied again to apertium-eng.
Best regards,
wolfgang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Apertium-stuff mailing list
Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
