Difference between revisions of "Talk:Norwegian Nynorsk and Norwegian Bokmål"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(old) |
(Blanked the page) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == Notes on bokmål NP structure == |
||
| − | Possible phrases to put in an NP slot (based on [http://www.hf.uib.no/i/LiLi/SLF/Dyvik/norsknoder.pdf Dyvik 2000], p.11--13)) with Apertium tags: |
||
| − | |||
| − | * året<n> |
||
| − | * et<det><ind> år<n> |
||
| − | * mange<adj> år<n> |
||
| − | * de<det> mange<adj> årene<n> |
||
| − | * alle<det><qnt> de<det><def> mange<adj> årene<n> dine<det><pos> |
||
| − | ** all the many years yours |
||
| − | * alle<det><qnt> disse<det><def> dine<det><pos> seksti<num> år<n> som<cnjsub> gikk<vblex> |
||
| − | ** all these your sixty years which went |
||
| − | * alle<det><qnt> som<cnjsub> gikk<vblex> |
||
| − | * mange<adj> |
||
| − | * mange<adj> raske<adj> |
||
| − | * *raske<adj> |
||
| − | ** (That is, we can't say "Gi meg raske." (''Give me quick (ones).'') but we can say "Gi meg noen raske." (''Give me some quick (ones).'').) |
||
| − | |||
| − | Dyvik's analysis (based on [http://www.hf.uib.no/i/LiLi/SLF/ans/Vangsnes/Contents.html Vangsnes 1999]) looks more or less like: |
||
| − | <pre> |
||
| − | NOM = { Prop | PRON | AllQP | DP | PossP | QuantP | NP } |
||
| − | |||
| − | AllQP → allq ({ DP | PossP | QuantP | NP }) |
||
| − | DP → det ({ PossP | QuantP | NP }) |
||
| − | PossP → { Poss | NOM<gen> } ({ QuantP | NP }) |
||
| − | QuantP → { QP | num | art } qnt (NP) |
||
| − | NP → AP* n (poss) (CP) |
||
| − | </pre> |
||
| − | (This is flattened a lot and disregards f-structure.) Assuming AP gives adj, we get: |
||
| − | <pre> |
||
| − | [AllQP alle<allq> [DP disse<det> [PossP dine<poss> [QuantP mange<qnt> [NP gode<adj> år<n> [CP som gikk] ] ] ] ] ] |
||
| − | |||
| − | [AllQP [QuantP mange<qnt> ] ] |
||
| − | </pre> |
||
| − | and so on, but this doesn't allow "Gi meg mange raske (*som gikk)" or "Gi meg alle de raske (som gikk)", so the NP needs to be more lax on the presence of n. |
||
| − | |||
| − | == Compounds == |
||
| − | |||
| − | There are several issues with [[compounds|compounding]]. First of all, we need to do the decompounding analysis. This could happen by changing lt-proc (fst_processor.cc) so that unknown words are sent to a decompounding-function that tries various strategies (looking up longest-match left-to-right / minimum cuts etc.). But that should be relatively easy (People Have Done This Before). |
||
| − | |||
| − | The practical problems come when trying to integrate this with disambiguation, transfer and generation in Apertium. |
||
| − | |||
| − | A naïve attempt: say we read ''språksivilisert informasjonssamfunn'' (neither in the dictionary), lt-proc could output something like: |
||
| − | <pre> |
||
| − | ^språk/språk<n><compound><nt><pl><ind>/språk<n><compound><nt><sg><ind>$^sivilisert/sivilisere<vblex><pp>/sivilisere<adj><pp><nt><sg><ind>/sivilisere<adj><pp><mf><sg><ind>$ |
||
| − | |||
| − | ^informasjon/informasjon<n><compound><m><sg><ind>$^s/s<epenthetic><compound> $^samfunn/samfunn<n><nt><pl><ind>/samfunn<n><nt><sg><ind>$ |
||
| − | </pre> |
||
| − | |||
| − | If the decompounder doesn't add spaces, we don't get spaces in final output. <code>s<epenthetic><compound></code> is RL, only generated by the lt-proc decompounder; probably we can have a language-specific list of possible epenthetics somewhere, like ''s'' and ''e'' for Norwegian. |
||
| − | |||
| − | This will seriously mess up CG though, since we can have eg. verb+noun/adj+noun/adj+verb compounds, etc. Only the last part of it matters for disambiguation (ie. ''språksivilisert'' is equivalent to ''sivilsert'' wrt. disambiguation, etc.), so I guess the simplest way would be to somehow make CG pretend that the first part doesn't exist, make CG ignore words with <code><compound></code> or something. Should be easy, just like superblanks, although it feels like a rather arbitrary change. Actually making sure CG ignores <code><compound></code>-tagged words ''without'' changing cg-proc would be a whole lot more work. |
||
| − | |||
| − | For transfer, we could probably do multi-stage transfer and chunk all <code><compound></code>-tagged words. The second stage does the actual transfer stuff (moving things around, concordance), using these chunks and thus ignoring any <code><compound></code>-tagged words. So we can probably get by without changing the transfer module. |
||
| − | |||
| − | :Another option would be to send it to CG as <code>^språksivilisert/språk<n><compound><nt><pl><ind>+sivilisere<vblex><pp>/språk<n><compound><nt><sg><ind>+sivilisere<vblex><pp>/språk<n><compound><nt><pl><ind>+sivilisere<adj><pp><nt><sg><ind>/...$</code> And then change apertium-pretransfer to not put a space where <code>+</code> is. Alternatively we could just make a new symbol, .e.g <code>=</code> or <code>&</code> to take the place of <code>+</code> that pretransfer just splits without inserting a space. - [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]] 11:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ===Disambiguating between compound types=== |
||
| − | Some heuristics given by [[Compounds#Further_reading|Johannesen & Hauglin]]: |
||
| − | |||
| − | * Compounds are always binary – they contain two members only (apart from possible epenthetic phones). |
||
| − | * Choose the analysis (or analyses) with the fewest compound members |
||
| − | * Lexical compounding is preferable to compounding with epenthetic phones. |
||
| − | ** Note: the first part is always just a stem. We don't have "cars.sick", only "car.sick", etc. (Well, that's what they say, but then there's "savnet.melding" ("missing.message") where the first part is inflected) |
||
| − | * Epenthetic -s- is preferred to lexical compounding when the -s- can be ambiguous between epenthetic use and the first letter of a verbal last member. |
||
| − | ** First-longest-match gets in the way of this... |
||
| − | * Epenthetic -s- can only follow noun stems. |
||
| − | ** Sounds like a job for CG. |
||
| − | * Epenthetic -s- is preferred to lexical compounding when the first member is itself a compound. |
||
| − | ** but that would involve marking lots of words in monodix... (unless we want to do multistem compounding, which we probably don't). Most likely handled by longest-match left-to-right, though |
||
| − | * Epenthetic -s- cannot follow epenthetic -e- and vice versa. |
||
| − | ** This could be hardcoded into a decompounder, since ''if'' a language allows something that looks like two epenthetics, you just add that as another epenthetic in your language-specific list. |
||
| − | * If two analyses have the same number of members and there is no epenthesis involved, choose the one, if any, that is a noun. |
||
| − | ** We can't do this, can we? That'd involve sending not only all analyses of the first longest matches, but all possible analyses into some compound disambiguation. |
||
| − | * If two analyses are equal with respect to epenthesis and part of speech, and one has a first member that is itself a compound, then choose that one. |
||
| − | ** Most likely handled by longest-match left-to-right. |
||
| − | * If the first member is unknown, choose the analysis with the longest last member. |
||
| − | ** Not handled by longest-match left-to-right? Or? |
||
| − | |||
| − | Stuff we most likely won't do: |
||
| − | * Epenthetic -e- can only be attached to a stem that is monosyllabic. This does not mean that epenthetic -e- must always make up the second syllable in a word, however. Other possible stems can be prior to the stem preceding the -e-, if they do not form a compound with that stem. |
||
| − | * Epenthetic -s- cannot occur after a sibilant or a final consonant sequence containing a sibilant except when the consonant sequence belongs to a compound. |
||
| − | |||
| − | ===Some compound stats=== |
||
| − | [http://www.dokpro.uio.no/bokmaal/nyord/nyord_ramme.html] gives a list of compounds, POS-tagged on both members and classified by epenthesis type etc. Of ~25000 compounds: ~10000 had epenthesis, 954 had an adjective as one member (about 50/50 on first and last), 327 had a verb as one member (again 50/50). |
||
| − | |||
| − | Of the 15904 non-epenthetic compounds, 674 were analysed by apertium-nn-nb. When putting nouns, adjectives and verbs into an "inconditional" section, 15889 were analysed, although many of these analyses were of course wrong. Of the 15889 naïvely decompounded analyses of non-epenthetic compounds, only 5369 were analysed as two words, so we definitely need to restrict decompounding to two-word analyses (with possible epenthetics). (After using only nouns, and removing single letters, this figure went up to 7512.) |
||
