The reason I was asking was exactly because of that: we're not trying to rewrite multi-tokens into smaller units but the opposite: expand smaller units into multiple ones.
But just to make sure: not because I thought it doesn't belong there, but because I really don't know what they're actual scope of separable is (except of having used it for a few phrasal verbs in eng-cat) -- Xavi Ivars < http://xavi.ivars.me > El dv., 29 de maig 2020, 0:39, Francis Tyers <fty...@prompsit.com> va escriure: > El 2020-05-28 23:12, Xavi Ivars escribió: > > How would this fit in apertium-separable? > > > > As far as I know the goal of apertium separable is to handle > > multi-words in a better way than in the monodixes. > > > > I totally get (and totally agree) that we should put in transfer only > > stuff that is really about transfer between both languages and we > > don't want to abuse it... But is that a good enough reason to abuse > > another module? Or may it be the case that apertium-separable should > > handle a broader set of use cases (and probably change its name)? > > > > -- > > Xavi Ivars > > < http://xavi.ivars.me > > > > > El dj., 28 de maig 2020, 16:14, Jonathan Washington > > <jonathan.n.washing...@gmail.com> va escriure: > > > >> This could definitely be done in apertium-separable. That would be > >> by far the most straightforward way to solve this problem. And if > >> you did it as a language-specific lsx file as has been being > >> discussed recently, it would serve the purpose you describe. > >> > >> Don't treat it as a structural transfer issue. The less lexical > >> stuff in transfer the better. > >> > >> -- > >> Jonathan > >> > >> On Thu, May 28, 2020, 06:47 Jaume Ortolà i Font > >> <jaumeort...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Isn't this something that should go in transfer, > >> > >> Dropping this "que" is possible in Spanish, but it is not regular > >> syntax, it is a mannerism used in bureaucratic jargon. The regular > >> syntax is with "que". It makes sense to add it, so all language > >> pairs can translate as usual. > >> > >> Transfer is extremely annoying for this kind of things, in my > >> experience. > >> > >> or you could > >> use apertium-separable for it? > >> > >> Probably yes. We are not using apertium-separable in spa-cat, and it > >> will be useful to do it. > >> > > I think it fits better in separable (rewriting multitokens into smaller > units) than in CG (disambiguation). > > Another place could be in the bilingual dictionary, a special tag or a > special > lexeme, marking the missing que on the target side. > > e.g. in the monodix you could have: > > rogar¹:pregar > rogar²:pregar > > > Then in the bidix: > > rogar¹:pregar > rogar²:pregar# que > > Then if a clean -cat was desired, a transfer rule could just insert a > que > when lemq was "# que". > > In fact, if we consider this stylism to be a different lexeme it kind of > makes sense. > > Fran >
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
