Hèctor Alòs i Font <hectoralos-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org> čálii:
> I am more sceptical about the need to distinguish between toponyms and > hydronyms. In some languages one will have an article and the other will > not, but these are rare cases. On the other hand, we do not distinguish > between countries (or regions) and cities, which in French is quite > important both for generating the article and the preposition preceding it, > if you translate from Catalan or Spanish: for instance, "New-York" is the > city, but "le New-York" is the state, so will have "à New-York" or "au > New-York" for "in New-York" (or "à Paris" but "en France"). The generation > of articles may also not be the same whether "Barcelona" stands for the > city or the (football or whatever) team, nor is the gender often the same. > So, are we then going to create more and more subtypes ad nauseam? Better > not! > > In short, we can find casuistries in certain pairs that may make us think > that some distinctions are appropriate, but adding them in monolingual > dictionaries and forcing them to be maintained for all languages seems > doubtful to me. So the city-vs-region distinction is only useful for target (structural) generation, not source analysis/disambiguation/anaphora. I think that can be a good guide to when something should be in monodixen or not. One solution here would be to add it in bidix (with a pardef so you don't need it when going the other way) and strip it in transfer, or even just use a def-list in the transfer files.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
