Quoting a letter from a collegue of mine, Sjur Moshagen (sjur.mosha...@uit.no).
Since many of the new apertium languages now are built as fst with lexc / hfst,
a setup like the one referred to below would as a side effect create
spellcheckers directly from apertium-based automata. People interes
Den 22.9.2011 kl. 14.31 skrev Francis Tyers:
>> Thank for your advices, I am a novice in computer linguistics, I have
>> to learn more about HFST, but now I am looking for a framework like
>> Two-Level Morphology, although is a "old" paradigm (80' 90'), was
>> the first general model in the
lttoolbox is good for segmental morphology, and better the more agglutinative
it is.
HFST and related frameworks are better when you have autosegmental morphology:
You may make one segmental transducer, and a separate transducer for the
autosegmental morphology, and for complex morphological pr
Den 5.7.2011 kl. 22.31 skrev Keld Jørn Simonsen:
>> Yes, Constraint grammar fits the bill.
> How can I disable new homonyms with that?
In order to answer (and to avoid misunderstanding) I would need to see your
output of the preceeding process (i.e. the situation that CG will be put to
fix).
Den 5.7.2011 kl. 17.09 skrev Keld Jørn Simonsen:
(...)
complicated. There are a handful of people on this list who use CG,
maybe you should talk to one of them. It might do what you want.
>>> OK, who are you thinking of?
>> Francis usually relentlessly promotes it. I'm surprised he hasn'
