User talk:Muki987

Jimregan's remarks

'With this knowledge we can construct the English' -- How? You don't seem to have given thought to that part.

'háza (his, her, its house repeat all previous to this) - 56' -- it strikes me as a) unlikely that you can chain all possible possessives in this manner and b) that you can do something useful that will convey an understandable meaning in another language even if it is.

'házas (married- repeat all previous for this up to here, except the last 2) 1680' -- a married house? Really?

'házacska' -- are there no lexicalised diminutives in Hungarian? I can theoretically add '-let' to any noun in English, but 'piglet' has a separate translation to most languages, and 'hamlet' is not a diminutive of 'ham'.

Just because you can theoretically infer meaning from an analysis doesn't mean that results will translate. -- Jimregan 05:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To Jimregan

>'With this knowledge we can construct the English' -- How? You don't seem to have given thought to that part.

Of course I did. Whatever I can do as a human translator, the machine can also do, if I tell him how. I am absolutely optimistic in the fact, and looking for the proper technology.

Great. 'To a person with a hammer, all problems look like nails'. I say that Hunmorph is your hammer; you are mixing derivational processes with agglutination and 'normal' morphology. Just because all of these things can be treated the same doesn't mean it always makes sense to do so, which is the point underlying everything I said. -- Jimregan 12:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your pont remains unclear for me, but it might be not worth to seek for clearness in this case, since your text seems to be philosophical for me. I am a practicing person, less philosophic type. I am rather new to practicing Hunmorph, anyway. Muki987 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that you have one solution to one problem; you're trying to use that solution for other problems. Clear? -- Jimregan 10:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not. Please explain what you want to say more detailed with examples. Also explain, why are you saying that. Muki987 11:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll make it as simple as possible: you think there's only one problem; there are many more. You are ignoring them because you have one solution, and think it will work for them all. It won't -- Jimregan 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me completely. I very clearly see, we have lots of things to do, I just address one of them, that's all. The main one for me at the moment. If that is fixed, I'll continue with the rest, or even better, we have a lot of commonly solvable problems, and we solve together the rest. What I addressed, is no problem for prefix type language pairs, but very clearly a problem for me. My primer focus is English-Hungarian, German-Hungarian, second English-German, third German-English, Fourth Hungarian-German, Hungarian-English. The other option is, we say, it is impossible to write a translator, I think, that is simply wrong. Muki987 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

>'háza (his, her, its house repeat all previous to this) - 56' -- it strikes me as a) unlikely that you can chain all possible possessives in this manner and b) that you can do something useful that will convey an understandable meaning in another language even if it is.

ház- házam, házad, háza, házunk, házatok házuk (my house, your house, his, her its house, our house, your hous their house) All relations to MY HOUSE are then expressed, as in the case of ház: házban- házamban házra- házamra etc... It is simple and understandable in all cultur languages.

You aren't addressing my point. 'repeat all previous to this', implying that you can have some combination meaning 'my your his their house'. -- Jimregan 12:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeat all previus means, that I can express the relations to "my house" "your house" ... "Their house" by using exactly the same inflects, as for "house". Above the example with "ban" = in , all others work exactly on the same way. Muki987 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, referring just to grammatical cases? Ok, that answers my question -- Jimregan 10:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to express it like that. Neither English, nor Hungarian have grammatical cases in fact, just to be precise. Muki987 11:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian does have grammatical cases; 'I usually quote 17 following those established by Antal László in 1977' -- the first group in your set of examples are grammatical cases -- Jimregan 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If I was in you, I were much more modest in my statements. Antal László's liguistic ideas are disputable. In Hungary, nobody speaks about n cases, because that is simply contraproductive. It is also contraproductive for foreigners, if they learn Hungarian. I see now, it is useful for translation, so I will use the concept, but for this purpose only. Muki987 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

>'házas (married- repeat all previous for this up to here, except the last 2) 1680' -- a married house? Really?

That word is a bit exception, since it has two meanings házas means married, and also a man/woman, who has a house In case if ing (shirt) inges means someone, who wears a shirt

Ah; now I see what you mean. I thought you meant that the suffix meant married, not the word -- Jimregan 10:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Then it's a derivation, and better treated as a separate word. -- Jimregan 12:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

>'házacska' -- are there no lexicalised diminutives in Hungarian? I can theoretically add '-let' to any noun in English, but 'piglet' has a separate translation to most languages, and 'hamlet' is not a diminutive of 'ham'.

acska or ikó is the diminutive. It is the same thing as pig-piglet.

I know what a diminutive is; did you understand my question? 'piglet' is a diminutive of pig, but it is a separate word in its own right, which would have its own translation -- it is lexicalised. Many (most) other diminutives are unproductive, and can be safely treated in terms of the original word. -- Jimregan 12:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there might be some words, whose diminutive form modifies the original word's meaning, however, I can't think even a single one at the moment in Hungarian. Piglet means little pig or a child pig. What do you want with these words and examples? English is very hard to translate due to tens of very different meanings of lots of words, like prime and the like. This is a very specific English problem, Hungarian or German do not have it. Are you addressing this problem? If yes, can you see any practical solution for this? Muki987 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're changing the issue again. If you want a German example; 'piglet' should be translated as 'Ferkel', not 'Schweinchen'; 'Mädchen', which is a lexicalised diminutive, should not be considered a form of 'Mäd'.

Word sense disambiguation is not a problem specific to English. -- Jimregan 10:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not specific to English, but sharper in English, than in any other cultur language. What about your ideas to solve it? Muki987 11:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Word sense disambiguation -- Jimregan 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't currently have a good working lexical selection module, but it is one of the ideas we're hoping to get implemented through GSOC. - Francis Tyers 21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:

In some cases, the diminutive suffix has become part of the basic form. These are no longer regarded as diminutive forms:

Animals

• -ka/ke: fóka (seal), róka (fox), csóka (jackdaw), pulyka (turkey), szarka (magpie)
• -cska/cske: macska (cat), kecske (goat), fecske (swallow), szöcske (grasshopper)

...which answers my question; yes, Hungarian does have lexicalised diminutives. -- Jimregan 10:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You see, you get better answers in fickipedia. You are right, this is an issue for translations, however one of the issues, that can easily be covered. Muki987 11:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes; it's an issue; one that you weren't considering. -- Jimregan 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and a lot of others also not. One after the other. Muki987 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

>Just because you can theoretically infer meaning from an analysis doesn't mean that results will translate. -- Jimregan 05:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I translated so much already, that I can say: You can not say anything in any cultur language, that can not be translated into an other one.

I hope, you do not want to stress that there are untranslatable things? I would strongly disagree with that assumption, and would ask you to give me at least one example. Muki987 08:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuation JR

Ok, let me refine what I meant: the results won't translate in a meaningful way. There are all sorts of ways of inferring from derivational processes what a word 'means', but they tend to be useful only to linguists/translators who can then determine the best way to represent that in the target language.

Yes, there are certain words that are not directly translatable between languages: their concepts may be conveyed in other ways, but it's an explanation, not a translation. -- Jimregan 12:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I call explanation on the target language a way to translate it. For example in German Hammelsprung means a sort of voting, when those, who say yes, exit the room using some doors, those, who say no, on some others. This can IMHO not directly be translated on any language, but must be explained; I call then the explanation translation, what it is. What do you think? Muki987 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

'Hammelsprung' -> 'parliamentary division', or just 'division', in context. That's the kind of translation MT should give: something as closely equivalent as possible, that fits into the same context. Your long explanation doesn't. -- Jimregan 11:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that might be the case for German-English, but as far as I know, not the case for German-Hungarian. C'est la vie. Muki987 12:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Still, it's better to use something shorter, that fits into the same general category, than to give a long winded explanation. -- Jimregan 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The shortest possible explanation, but it must be understandable for every reader Muki987 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is rather off the topic of the discussion, this page is more to discuss methods of representing agglutinative morphology in Apertium, rather than the translation problems of agglutinative languages (which are also interesting, but better reserved for another page, or the mailing list). :) - Francis Tyers 08:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear, that you are convinced, apertium technology is suitable for agglutinative languages. Having gone thru the English-SerboCroatian example I was not that sure. I am at the moment in the evaluation phase, and I am looking for all existing technologies. At present in my opinion google translation technology with its statistical, grammar free approach will never have the quality of a grammar oriented one, like apertium. It will for ever remain on the surface, with no real improvement perspective. However, for some situations it is very helpful. That was my first step in the direction. We can continue this subject on my discussion page, if Jimregan wants. Muki987 10:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding other free grammar-focussed MT engines, you might also check out and Matxin. Open Logos has the downside of not supporting UTF-8 and not having very active development, while Matxin requires a dependency grammar to be written in Freeling format. If you want to go from English→Hungarian then this might be the answer, as they already have one written for English, but for Hungarian→English, it might take some extra development time. The Constraint grammar formalism for disambiguation and syntactic annotation might also be interesting. I'm quite happy to discuss other options and if you have any questions, please contact us on the mailing list, personally or through IRC. - Francis Tyers 10:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. Are you the one asking on the hunmorph list about generation ('morp visszafele')? :) - Francis Tyers 12:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am an old language "rabbit" :-) Peter H. says, hunlex knows something similar, we are waiting for Victor, the author, he might know..... Muki987 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)