A 2016-10-21 06:16, Joonas Kylmälä escrigué: > 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?
Yes, a corpus which is morphologically disambiguated and annotated with tree structure. > 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. Ok, I think we understand each other! F. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
