Tino Didriksen wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 17:50, Francis Tyers <fty...@prompsit.com> wrote: > > > As far as I understand the objective is to be able > > to > > put the original surface form in the output translation as an unknown > > token > > instead of the lemma. > > > > ... > > > > I think that the appropriate way to deal with this is by coming up with > > a > > clear plan for the linguistic eventualities. I don't see that in the > > current > > proposal. I have been showing Tanmai through the creation of a new MT > > system, > > and we have been documenting these issues as they arise. I don't think > > it makes > > sense to start development before they have been resolved. > > > > > Those are important issues, but they're orthogonal to how to transport > secondary information through the pipe.
> Even at the earliest stages of the proposal, it was expanded to be > 1) Get secondary tags through the pipe. 2) Use that ability to > eliminate trimming. 3) Use the same ability for a myriad of other > things, such as markup handling. If I understand the issue correctly, it isn't clear yet that (2) as phrased is possible. *Is there* an answer yet to what we *want* to happen in > such as what should happen to secondary information when tokens are > merged/split. ? Not about the algorithm or implementation or anything. Just, what would we like the result to be? > We need to implement and solve #1 first - be able to transport (and > potentially manipulate) any amount of data that might be needed to > solve #2 and #3 and ... #9. I don't think it makes sense to mandate a mechanism we aren't convinced will work... Cheers, Nick _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
