Development ideas for dictionary format - Revision history

Francis Tyers: /* Flags */

2012-02-20T08:17:47Z

Flags

Francis Tyers: /* Flags */

2012-02-20T08:16:50Z

Flags

Francis Tyers: /* Flags */

2012-02-20T08:12:47Z

Flags

Francis Tyers: /* Archiphonemes */

2012-02-20T08:07:49Z

Archiphonemes

Francis Tyers at 14:29, 27 December 2011

2011-12-27T14:29:51Z

Francis Tyers at 11:33, 27 December 2011

2011-12-27T11:33:04Z

Francis Tyers at 11:21, 27 December 2011

2011-12-27T11:21:36Z

Francis Tyers at 11:21, 27 December 2011

2011-12-27T11:21:22Z

Francis Tyers: Created page with 'The idea of this page is to collect ideas for how to expand the Apertium `.dix` format such that it could be a drop-in replacement for lexc. Currently it has many …'

2011-12-27T11:16:46Z

Created page with 'The idea of this page is to collect ideas for how to expand the Apertium <code>.dix</code> format such that it could be a drop-in replacement for lexc. Currently it has many …'

New page

The idea of this page is to collect ideas for how to expand the Apertium <code>.dix</code> format such that it could be a drop-in replacement for [[lexc]]. Currently it has many advantages over lexc: Convenient / easy validation, more restrictive syntax, support for multiword queues. The problem is that it doesn't support some useful features that lexc has, or not comfortably.

== Archiphonemes ==

Perhaps use entities ?

The option of just using {{tag|s}} is pretty much out,

<pre>
<e><p><l><s n="pron"/></l><r><s n="L"/><s n="A"/><s n="G"/><s n="I"/></r></p><par n="CASE"/></e>
</pre>

For

<pre>
%<pron%>:%>%{L%}%{I%}%{K%}%{I%} CASE ;
</pre>

Something like:

<pre>
<e><p><l><s n="pron"/></l><r>&L;&A;&G;&I;</r></p><par n="CASE"/></e>
</pre>

Might be liveable ? These would then be converted by the compiler into <code>{L}{A}{G}{I}</code> tags ?

== Morpheme boundary ==

Current tags:

* {{tag|a}} = "alarm"
* {{tag|s}} = "symbol"
* {{tag|b}} = "blank"
* {{tag|j}} = "join"
* {{tag|g}} = "group"

It's desirable that it be a single letter.

Available: c d f h k m n o q t u v w x y z

== Flags ==

[[Category:Development]]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 <pardef n="V-INFL-COMMON">
-  <e>        <par n="V-INFL-COMMON-SECOND"/>
+  <e>        <par n="V-INFL-COMMON-SECOND"/></e>
   <e r="LR"><f n="neg"/><p><l><m/>&I;ш</l><r><s n="coop"/></r></p></f></e>
   <e>       <p><l><m/>&I;ш</l><r><s n="coop"/></r></p></e>

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 %<coop%>:%>%{I%}ш V-INFL-COMMON-SECOND ;
+</pre>
+<pre>
+<pardef n="V-INFL-COMMON">
+  <e>        <par n="V-INFL-COMMON-SECOND"/>
+  <e r="LR"><f n="neg"/><p><l><m/>&I;ш</l><r><s n="coop"/></r></p></f></e>
+  <e>       <p><l><m/>&I;ш</l><r><s n="coop"/></r></p></e>
+</pardef>
 </pre>

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 == Flags ==
+<pre>
+@P.NEG.0@   ! Set if -{I}š is not present
+@P.NEG.1@   ! Set if -{I}š is present
+@D.NEG.0@   ! Disallow if -{I}š is not present
+@D.NEG.1@   ! Disallow if -{I}š is present
+LEXICON V-PERS-PRES ! P_6
+@D.NEG.1@%<p1%>%<sg%>:@D.NEG.1@%>м # ;
+@D.NEG.1@%<p2%>%<sg%>:@D.NEG.1@%>с%{I%}ң # ;
+LEXICON V-INFL-FINITE
+%<aor%>:%>%{E%} V-PERS-PRES ;
+LEXICON V-INFL-COMMON-SECOND
+V-INFL-FINITE ;
+@D.NEG.1@:@D.NEG.1@ V-INFL-NON-FINITE ;
+LEXICON V-INFL-COMMON
+V-INFL-COMMON-SECOND ;
+@P.NEG.1@:%>%{I%}ш@P.NEG.1@ V-INFL-COMMON-SECOND ; ! Dir/LR
+%<coop%>:%>%{I%}ш V-INFL-COMMON-SECOND ;
+</pre>
 == Phonology ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{TOCD}}
-The idea of this page is to collect ideas for how to expand the Apertium <code>.dix</code> format such that it could be a drop-in replacement for [[lexc]]. Currently it has many advantages over lexc: Convenient / easy validation, more restrictive syntax, support for multiword queues. The problem is that it doesn't support some useful features that lexc has, or not comfortably. Also it would be desirable to standardise on some of the typical lexc stuff, e.g. ''one'' way of writing the morpheme boundary, not 100.
+The idea of this page is to collect ideas for how to expand the Apertium <code>.dix</code> format such that it could be a drop-in replacement for [[lexc]]. Currently it has many advantages over lexc: Convenient / easy validation, more restrictive syntax, support for multiword queues and inbuilt support for analysis/generation restrictions. The problem is that it doesn't support some useful features that lexc has, or not comfortably. Also it would be desirable to standardise on some of the typical lexc stuff, e.g. ''one'' way of writing the morpheme boundary, not 100.
 == Archiphonemes ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{TOCD}}
-The idea of this page is to collect ideas for how to expand the Apertium <code>.dix</code> format such that it could be a drop-in replacement for [[lexc]]. Currently it has many advantages over lexc: Convenient / easy validation, more restrictive syntax, support for multiword queues. The problem is that it doesn't support some useful features that lexc has, or not comfortably.
+The idea of this page is to collect ideas for how to expand the Apertium <code>.dix</code> format such that it could be a drop-in replacement for [[lexc]]. Currently it has many advantages over lexc: Convenient / easy validation, more restrictive syntax, support for multiword queues. The problem is that it doesn't support some useful features that lexc has, or not comfortably. Also it would be desirable to standardise on some of the typical lexc stuff, e.g. ''one'' way of writing the morpheme boundary, not 100.
 == Archiphonemes ==

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 Might be liveable ? These would then be converted by the compiler into <code>{L}{A}{G}{I}</code> tags ?
+Further reading: [http://flylib.com/books/en/4.384.1.22/1/ 2.5 Entities]
 == Morpheme boundary ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:21, 27 December 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{TOCD}}
	The idea of this page is to collect ideas for how to expand the Apertium <code>.dix</code> format such that it could be a drop-in replacement for [[lexc]]. Currently it has many advantages over lexc: Convenient / easy validation, more restrictive syntax, support for multiword queues. The problem is that it doesn't support some useful features that lexc has, or not comfortably.		The idea of this page is to collect ideas for how to expand the Apertium <code>.dix</code> format such that it could be a drop-in replacement for [[lexc]]. Currently it has many advantages over lexc: Convenient / easy validation, more restrictive syntax, support for multiword queues. The problem is that it doesn't support some useful features that lexc has, or not comfortably.

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 == Flags ==
+== Phonology ==
+== Further reading ==
+* Anssi Yli-Jyrä (2011) "Explorations on Positionwise Flag Diacritics in Finite-State Morphology". NODALIDA
+** This paper adds flag diacritics for implementing morphophonology to a single-tape (e.g. like lttoolbox, no intersect/compose) finite-state transducer.
 [[Category:Development]]

Development ideas for dictionary format - Revision history

Francis Tyers: /* Flags */

Francis Tyers: /* Flags */

Francis Tyers: /* Flags */

Francis Tyers: /* Archiphonemes */

Francis Tyers at 14:29, 27 December 2011

Francis Tyers at 11:33, 27 December 2011

Francis Tyers at 11:21, 27 December 2011

Francis Tyers at 11:21, 27 December 2011

Francis Tyers: Created page with 'The idea of this page is to collect ideas for how to expand the Apertium .dix format such that it could be a drop-in replacement for lexc. Currently it has many …'

Francis Tyers: Created page with 'The idea of this page is to collect ideas for how to expand the Apertium `.dix` format such that it could be a drop-in replacement for lexc. Currently it has many …'