On 10/20/16, Francis Tyers <[email protected]> wrote: > A 2016-10-20 18:01, Joonas Kylmälä escrigué: >> Hi Fran, >> >> I guess you mean with disambiguated corpus only a corpus with >> morphological readings disambiguated and where there is no syntactic >> structure marked (like with CG style sugar). But generating barrier >> sets from syntax trees (and in general just from syntactilly marked >> corpus) is a good idea! The research I have seen so far on this topic >> has only used the morphological tags and n-gram methods for induction >> but no syntactic information. > > No, no... I mean from a treebank like the treebanks in the Universal > dependencies > project.
Aren't treebanks just collections of syntax (+ something more) trees? Or if you were referring to my "I guess you mean..." sentence then it's totally different from the sentences starting from "But generating.." and with that I referred to the non-treebank way of doing the CG induction. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
