Ken, No, I do not think of luxury, I just think of agglutinating or flectioning languages, that create all or many correlations using endings.
It is not much help, if the word house is found, but "in the house", "from the house", "to the house", "at the house", "my house", "to my house" and 1223 other similar structures are still flagged as erroneous. Even in German there are about 6 variations of each word, if you add for example "play" in German, "you play" "he plays" "we play", "you played, "he played", "they played", "to play" "playing female gender" "playing male gender" "playing neutral gender" and others remain bad in the spell check, therefore affixes are not a luxury, but a minimal necessity. Thanks, Eleonora > --- Urspr�ngliche Nachricht --- > Von: Ken Foskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [lingu-dev] spell checking problems > Datum: Tue, 17 May 2005 21:47:52 +1000 > > On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 18:04 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > For most languages a flat user wordlist without suffixes does > > not really help. > > There is a possibility of taking on your idea such that if you add toy > then you add toys then the logic is smart enough to put the /s into > place as an extension but I feel that this is optimising the wrong > problem, it also makes all logic more complex. I make the distinction > between dictionary that contains thousands of words to a user word list > that should only contain less than 100 words. > > If you are adding a huge number of personal words then you are probably > creating an industry dictionary, eg medical or computing, and this is > what we should sponsor to reduce the additions to the personal list. > > -- > Ken Foskey > OpenOffice.org developer -- 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f�r Mail, Message, More +++ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
