Hi, OK. I just thought the other way around: Because coverage is so low, it would be fruitful to generate translations for unknown words.
In the next step, I intended to add the most frequent words, bit by bit. As you have pointed out, it's much more effective to have a word in the dictionaries than to generate it by some rule. Thus the gain is obviously largest from adding the most frequent compounds and derivations explicitly in the dictionaries. But it's still nice to get translations of the more rare compounds and derivations. See my comments below. Yours, Per Tunedal On Sun, Nov 11, 2012, at 11:48, Francis Tyers wrote: > El dg 11 de 11 de 2012 a les 10:46 +0100, en/na Per Tunedal va escriure: > > Hi again Mikel, > > do you have any examples of this. I need to see all the" XML clutter" to > > understand how to use it practically. > > > > This general translation of some word categories might be useful for > > Swedish (sv) - Danish (da) and very useful for Norwegian (no) - Swedish > > (sv). There are a lot of words that behave just as in your example. > > Don't try and do derivational morphology in the bilingual dictionary. Why? I just thought this might be interesting to try out. > > > Further: > > > > I am reflecting on the best way of treating prefixes, used to change the > > meaning of a word. First I thought of attacking it as a compound, but > > I'm not sure that's the best way. Maybe something like your example > > would be better? Or even a third solution? > > Don't do it. Work on stuff that is really going to effect the quality of > the translation. Well, the most blatant errors are. 1. Low word coverage. And I just wanted to try a solution that quickly increases the coverage. Then there wouldn't be any panic for adding more words, but it would increase the translation quality (and speed) one step further. It would be a pleasure, not a plight to add new words. 2. Strange errors probably due to mistakes made by the tagger. And you've told me that it isn't any use to train the tagger before adding some 20 000 words. That would take me some 20 years. It's simply out of the question. Thus, I would have to use some other strategy. I will try different strategies to add a large number of words at a time. > > Work from frequency and add them word at a time. Do not try and work > with derivational morphology while the coverage is so low. As I've said: Why not? What's the drawback? > > Fran > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_nov > _______________________________________________ > Apertium-stuff mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_nov _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
