Am Montag, 16. Mai 2005 11:08 schrieb dwb: > | For user words it is important to develop logic to be able to use > | the proper flags. For example, lets assume, the word boy/s is in > | the dictionary. If the user adds toy, it should be added as toy/s in > | order to handle plural correctly. > > Not sure I follow you properly here. Are you suggesting that adding toy > should also add toy/s? So would adding coy also add coy/s? Obviously this > is nonsense since coy/s is a non-word. :-)
I would have guessed, coys is a valid word for several coy persons. Strange. Thanks that you pointing this out. >The problem is that different > rules apply for different kinds of words. (e.g noun, verb, adjective etc.) Yes. But for lots of languages the rules are straighforward and can be implemented. A newly added word in most cases has similar affixes, as existing ones of the same class (verb, noun, adjective, ...) ending similarly. You are right, if you mean, the exceptions need to be handled properly. > The rules of word formation are non-trivial. If you take a look at the > en-GB ".aff" file you will get a flavour of this for English and we only > picked the 50 or so most common rules to encode! Most ordinary users don't > know or care about these rules. That's why for each language individual rules apply. Like the wordset is individual, so are the rules for building suffixes/prefixes. > I agree with the principle proposed, but it is far from trivial to > implement. :-) No, it is not trivial. A new project, that should be added to the wish list. For most languages a flat user wordlist without suffixes does not really help. Regards, Eleonora --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
