Multiwords - Revision history

Thatprogrammer: Grammar change

2017-12-10T05:17:04Z

Grammar change

Irene: /* Overview */ added links to agreement & discontinuous multiwords project proposals

2017-05-20T09:14:25Z

Overview: added links to agreement & discontinuous multiwords project proposals

Unhammer: /* Overview */

2017-04-19T09:16:45Z

Overview

Rcrowther: Fill out the example

2016-11-27T21:53:27Z

Fill out the example

Rcrowther at 18:34, 25 November 2016

2016-11-25T18:34:37Z

Rcrowther at 18:30, 25 November 2016

2016-11-25T18:30:52Z

Rcrowther: I'd want this warning

2016-11-25T13:53:05Z

I'd want this warning

Rcrowther at 13:50, 25 November 2016

2016-11-25T13:50:21Z

Rcrowther at 13:49, 25 November 2016

2016-11-25T13:49:17Z

Rcrowther at 13:39, 25 November 2016

2016-11-25T13:39:45Z

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 The English verb 'roll' is often supplemented with a word for orientation/direction e.g. 'to roll over' or 'to roll down'.  Within the Apertium system, we would like to treat these as 'many (two) words that make a single verb'. You might find this many-word verb in a sentence like 'the car rolled down the hill'. Perhaps a linguist may wish to study word-constructions like this further, but recognising 'roll down' as one word is a good step forward in machine translation.
-We can do this by creating an English monodix paradigm. Please note that his example is a little contrived, as the same effect can be made with no more than a section  entry (however, if we show a paradigm the example will work even if the multiword verb was more difficult),
+We can do this by creating an English monodix paradigm. Please note that this example is a little contrived, as the same effect can be made with no more than a section  entry (however, if we show a paradigm the example will work even if the multiword verb was more difficult),
 <pre>
@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 By all means patch to make some progress, but this is not a good end solution.
 == Simple usage ==

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
-The following multiwords are not very well supported [[User:Skh/Application_GSoC_2010|quite yet]]:
+The following multiwords are in the process of being supported:
-* ''Agreement multiwords'': complex multiwords where two (or more) parts show some sort of agreement/dependence of tags (or, where certain tag combinations are illegal)
+* [[User:Skh/Application_GSoC_2010|''Agreement multiwords'':]] complex multiwords where two or more parts show some sort of agreement/dependence of tags (or, where certain tag combinations are illegal)
 ** lt-mwpp takes a file which specifies which lemma combinations are multiwords, and what tags need to agree, and generates all the legal combinations in the lttoolbox dix format
-* ''Discontiguous multiwords'': multiwords with an arbitrary number of unrelated words in between, eg. the separable verbs in Germanic languages
+* [[User:Irene/proposal|''Discontiguous multiwords'':]] multiwords with an arbitrary number of unrelated words in between, eg. the separable verbs in Germanic languages
 (but see hacks below)

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 #* <pre>analysis: ^coffees with milk/coffee<n><pl># with milk$</pre>
 #* <pre>after disambiguation and pre-transfer: ^coffee# with milk<n><pl>$</pre>
+#* So the tags are "in the ''middle''", right after the inflection, in the analyser, but appears ''after'' the whole lemma (including <code><g/></code> group) in the bidix
 # '''<code><j/></code>''' is used when you want the multiword to be split into two lexical units, each with its own analysis (set of tags), where both parts may vary independently
 #* <pre>entry: <e>wr</i><par n="wr/ite__vblex"/><p><l><b/>about</l><r><j/>about<s n="pr"/></r></p></e></pre>
@@ Line 40: / Line 41: @@
 * ''Discontiguous multiwords'': multiwords with an arbitrary number of unrelated words in between, eg. the separable verbs in Germanic languages
 (but see hacks below)
 == Why make a multiword entry? ==

@@ Line 266: / Line 266: @@
     <attr-item tags="pres">
     <attr-item tags="past">
+  </def-attr>
+  <def-attr n="a_persona">
+    <attr-item tags="p1">
+    <attr-item tags="p2">
+    <attr-item tags="mp3">
   </def-attr>
@@ Line 295: / Line 301: @@
             <clip pos="1" side="tl" part="lemh"/>
             <clip pos="1" side="tl" part="a_lexical_verb"/>
-            <clip pos="1" side="tl" part="a verb form"/>
+            <clip pos="1" side="tl" part="a_verb_form"/>
-            <!--
+            <clip pos="1" side="tl" part="a_persona"/>
-              <clip pos="1" side="tl" part="a_persona"/>
-            -->
             <clip pos="1" side="tl" part="a_gender"/>
 	    <clip pos="1" side="tl" part="a_number"/>
@@ Line 309: / Line 313: @@
-But your language dictionary/translation may have different needs. You may not be handling multiword verbs. I've commented out the 'a_persona' clip entry to highlight the point.
+But your language dictionary/translation may have different needs. You may not be handling multiword verbs. You may need other categories of tagging.
 === Simple usage of &lt;j/&gt; ===

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 Note how the superblank '<b/>' is used to mark the limits of the words in the multiword verb.
-We can use/trigger the multiword aradigm from an English monodix 'section' entry,
+We can use/trigger the multiword paradigm from an English monodix 'section' entry,
 <pre>
@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 Note the use of the superblank '<b/>' again, this time to construct the lemma.
-This is a surprisingly easy and clear way to construct multiword recognition.  at the time of writing, you can find examples of this method in dictionaries on Apertium. This is possibly due to the ease and clarity, or because the dictionary entries are old.
+This is a surprisingly easy and clear way to construct multiword recognition. At the time of writing, you can find examples of this method in dictionaries on Apertium. This is possibly due to the ease and clarity, or because the dictionary entries are old.
 So you may ask, 'why not let Apertium treat these two words as separate words?'. Apertium is a flexible system :) If you need to get the effect, various bidix/monodix entries, or a rule in the first stage of the chunker module will work.

@@ Line 339: / Line 339: @@
 == Can I translate simple entries to and from multiword entries? ==
+From the [https://wiki.apertium.org/w/images/d/d0/Apertium2-documentation.pdf Manual],
-From the Manual,
 <blockquote>
-It can be the case that a lemma is a multiword of this kind in one lan-
+It can be the case that a lemma is a multiword of this kind in one language and a single word in the other language.  In that case, in the bilingual dictionary, the multiword will contain the <g> element and the single word will not.
-guage and a single word in the other language.  In that case, in the bilin-
-gual dictionary, the multiword will contain the <g> element and the single
-word will not.
 </blockquote>

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 === Simple usage of &lt;g/&gt; and &lt;b/&gt; ===
+The first thing to say about this solution is that it may need a transfer rule. Without the rule, translation text may be lost. If you start adding any multiword rules, it is a good idea to have the transfer rule in place. The rule is very general and can be added to most language pairs.
 There is an example from English to Esperanto with '''inner inflection''' followed by an invariant part with spaces.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:50, 25 November 2016
Line 201:		Line 201:
	</pre>		</pre>

	For a monodix, this is a long and complex line. But, you will remember, this method avoids creating ac massive and non-reusable paradigm.		For a monodix, this is a long and complex line. But, you will remember, this method avoids creating a massive and non-reusable paradigm.

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 * ''Discontiguous multiwords'': multiwords with an arbitrary number of unrelated words in between, eg. the separable verbs in Germanic languages
 (but see hacks below)
 == Why make a multiword entry? ==
 The first thing to say about multiword translations is that they can sometimes be handled by knowing only the [[Monodix basics]] and [[Bilingual dictionary]] basics (and also the superblank '<b/>').
@@ Line 171: / Line 173: @@
 </pre>
-Compare this to the simple example in "Why make a multiword entry?". The verb mark is next to the word it is changing/inflecting, and so can use the generic paradigm for 'roll' (which is 'accept__vblex'), not a dedicated paradigm. This is a step forward.
+Compare this to the simple example in  [[#Why make a multiword entry?]]. The verb mark is next to the word it is changing/inflecting, and so can use the generic paradigm for 'roll' (which is 'accept__vblex'), not a dedicated paradigm. This is a step forward.
 However, this produces results we do not want. It recognises the output, but truncates like this,
@@ Line 332: / Line 334: @@
 (This also happens with compounds.)
 == Can I translate simple entries to and from multiword entries? ==
-This is from the Manual,
+From the Manual,
 <blockquote>
@@ Line 344: / Line 348: @@
 Yes you can. The bidex only cares about lemmas.
 ==The complicated cases==