Difference between revisions of "Talk:Subreadings in Constraint Grammar"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
- [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]] 13:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
- [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]] 13:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
==Some file== |
|||
<pre> |
|||
SECTION |
|||
SUBSTITUTE ("од") ("од:5") ("од") (-1 (adj)); |
|||
^помладо/adj<pref><comp>+млад<adj><nt><sg><nom><ind>$ ^од/од<pr>$ ^30/30<num>$^./.<sent>$ |
|||
</pre> |
|||
<pre> |
|||
MAP (@+FMAINV) TARGET VerbFin ; |
|||
^n'eus/ne<adv>+bezañ<vblex><pri><impers><sp>/ne<adv>+kaout<vblex><pri><p1><pl>$ ^kador/kador<n><f><sg>$ ^ebet/ebet<adv>$^./.<sent>$ |
|||
</pre> |
Latest revision as of 08:00, 16 May 2013
More discussion[edit]
<TinoDidriksen> +parts are hidden, currently... <TinoDidriksen> Or rather, stuff before the + is hidden. <|krvoje|> o_0 <TinoDidriksen> Also, the + is not part of the tag. <TinoDidriksen> +htjeeti becomes a baseform "htjeeti" <spectie> our thing is a horrible hack :(((( <TinoDidriksen> + is a horrible hack... <spectie> it's great for apertium, but just doesn't fit into CG yet <spectie> what cg-proc should do <spectie> is treat the parts separated by '+' as separate cohorts <TinoDidriksen> That can relatively easily be done, but sure about that? http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/Subreadings_in_Constraint_Grammar did not mention that option.
- You can't treat clitics as separate cohorts, how would that even work? Say you have
^foo bar/foo<tags>+bar<tags>/foobar<tags>$
, should it be treated as "foo<tags>/foobar<tags> followed by a single reading bar<tags>", or "foo<tags> followed by a bar<tags>/foobar<tags>" ? That sounds like a type of complexity we don't want. unhammer 07:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
<spectie> the problem is that sometimes we don't want that :)) <spectie> but i think that's a problem with apertium <TinoDidriksen> Ah <spectie> we should distinguish + and # <spectie> + should be for separate cohorts <spectie> # for separate parts of the same cohort <spectie> or something <spectie> e.g. compound words get # <spectie> and attached clitics get + <|krvoje|> bbiab, lunch <spectie> ok <TinoDidriksen> So, + should be regarded as a soft cohort split thingy... <spectie> yes <spectie> but we should also check with unhammer
I really think it makes sense to be able to distinguish these two things, we can't use '+' for both:
- Attached clitics / joined words (each word needs to be referred to separately)
- Compound words (we're only interested in the head)
I suggest coming up with some other thing for compounds (perhaps ~
, although I think we've discussed this before ?
- Francis Tyers 13:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Some file[edit]
SECTION SUBSTITUTE ("од") ("од:5") ("од") (-1 (adj)); ^помладо/adj<pref><comp>+млад<adj><nt><sg><nom><ind>$ ^од/од<pr>$ ^30/30<num>$^./.<sent>$
MAP (@+FMAINV) TARGET VerbFin ; ^n'eus/ne<adv>+bezañ<vblex><pri><impers><sp>/ne<adv>+kaout<vblex><pri><p1><pl>$ ^kador/kador<n><f><sg>$ ^ebet/ebet<adv>$^./.<sent>$