El 2020-06-13 23:18, Jonathan Washington escribió:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 16:05 Francis Tyers <fty...@prompsit.com> wrote:
El 2020-06-13 19:31, Xavi Ivars escribió:
Before anything, let me say that I like the proposal to enhance
the
pipeline with more data (including, but not limited to the surface
forms), to be able to do properly do things that currently we're
doing
in veeeery hacky (to me) and definitely non-linguistic ways
xavi@dell:~/src/apertium-spa$ echo "El mango" | apertium -d .
spa-morph
^El/el<det><def><m><sg>$
^mango/mango<n><m><sg>/mangar<vblex><pri><p1><sg>/MANGO_FRUTA<N><M><SG>$^./.<sent>$
In this example, we "add" semantic information to the pipeline
(and
disambiguate via CG3) by creating a "fake lemma" needed for
SPA-CAT,
because "mango<n>" (pan stick) and "mango_fruta<n>" are translated
differently in Catalan. But this, in turn, forces every other
language
pair using Spanish to know about "mango_fruta<n>" even if the
translation was the same as "mango<n>".
What is the problem here? That "mango" has two possible lemmas and
paradigms
in Spanish?
The way that I've treated that is to have mango¹ and mango², like
in a
traditional dictionary. I don't think that this requires any further
information.
I think Xavi's point is that there are a number of ways to approach
this, and having the option of another stream to put this extra
information could be one of them. Imho, it is nicer in many ways than
even having (very arbitrary) superscripts (that aren't really any
better to have in a morphological analysis than _fruta).
It's following what the lexicographers do:
https://dle.rae.es/?w=mango
So it's following a fairly established practice.
Fran
_______________________________________________
Apertium-stuff mailing list
Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
