On Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 10:20 Tino Didriksen <m...@tinodidriksen.com> wrote:
> > Yes, inline secondary data is linguistically impure. I recognize this. I > still think it's worth it, and is the best way to do it. > This is the main point against secondary tags that Tino provided. As someone who cares deeply about linguistics, I have no problem with secondary tags on these grounds. That is, I don't see "purity" as a legitimate concern—we do all sorts of things with Apertium that are not ideal from a linguistic point of view, but if it works broadly, I don't mind. There are legitimate concerns with secondary tags that do need to be discussed. I'd also like to mention here that we have something like secondary tags peripheral to the pipeline already, cf. apertium-kaz-kir$ echo "Оқу инемен құдық қазғандай." | apertium -d . kaz-kir-disam ^Оқы<v><tv><ger><nom>/¬Оқу<n><nom>+е<cop><aor><p3><pl><REMOVE:294>/¬Оқу<n><nom>+е<cop><aor><p3><sg><REMOVE:294>$ ^ине<n><ins>$ ^құдық<n><nom>/¬құдық<n><attr><REMOVE:569>/¬құдық<n><nom>+е<cop><aor><p3><pl><REMOVE:294>/¬құдық<n><nom>+е<cop><aor><p3><sg><REMOVE:294>$ ^қаз<v><tv><ger_past><sim>$^.<sent>$^.<sent>$ -- Jonathan > >
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
