Dear Eleonora, the rule making is fine. But i was suggesting that " if multiple affix could be added the rule making would be easy and many more words could be derived" for example: dic: thak/a +verb Ram/b +noun
aff: sfx a Y 1 sfx 0 eka/b . +past sfx b Y 1 sfx 0 haru/c . +plural sfx c Y 1 sfx 0 le . +ergative then we will have the following combinations if multiple affixes were allowed: thak +verb thakeka +verb_past thakekaharu +noun _plural thakekaharule +noun_plural_ergative RAM +noun Ramharu +noun_plural Ramharule +noun_plural_ergative if only two affix are allowed then we will have to make one set of rule for the verb and the same set of rules for nouns which could have been reduced. Nepali is very rich in morphemes and they are very productive so rule making would be easier and logical. This is why i wanted multiple affixes. But the present method that you have suggested will also do and will be sufficient. with best regards, On 10/20/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Prajol, You can use either: dict: thak/flags1 thakeka/flags2 thakekaharu/flags3 thakekaharule/flags4 or: dict: thak/a aff: sfx a Y 3 sfx a 0 eka/flags2 sfx a 0 ekaharu/flags3 sfx a 0 ekaharule/flags4 Why is that not sufficient for you? Regards: Eleonora On Thursday 19 October 2006 06:26 am, प्रज्वल श्रेष्ठ wrote: > Hi nemeth, > nice to hear from you. I will do as you have mentioned. But i think it will > be helpful and productive if we could handle more consecutive suffixes. The > morphemes that i had mentioned are very productive hence few rules may > result into large numbers of inflected word. Now I will have to make many > one suffix concatenated morphemes as you have mentioned. > for example: > thak+eka+haru+le will now be thak+eka+harule > but 'haru' and 'le' can also be added to other words seperately like: > ram+haru > ram+le or, > ram+haru+le > so if we could handle it then only by 3 rules we could have covered the > whole suffixes rather than making a single morpheme that consists of 2 or > more morpheme. > I hope you understand what i am trying to point out. > with best regards, > > On 10/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Prajol, > > > > You need to concatenate them, because Hunspell > > can handle only two consecutive suffixes: > > > > thak+eka+harule > > > > I suggest to use one suffix for concatenated derivational morphemes > > and another for concatenated inflectional morphemes. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Laci > > > > > > Quoting पŕĽ�रŕ¤�ŕĽ�ाल > > > > जŕĽ�रŕĽ�डŕĽ�ठ<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Hi all, > > > I have been making the dictionary and affix file for Nepali Language > > > for Hunspell. Everything works well except that i have not been able to > > > use three suffix rules at once. For example : > > > an example of a Nepali word in roman~~ > > > > > > thakekaharule > > > thak+eka+haru+le > > > > > > here the addition sign '+' indicates a new morpheme. How is this type > > > of rules made? I tried like the following: > > > > > > dic file: > > > thak/A > > > > > > aff file: > > > > > > SFX A Y 1 > > > SFX 0 eka/B . > > > > > > SFX B Y 1 > > > SFX 0 haru/C . > > > > > > SFX C Y 1 > > > SFX 0 le . > > > > > > and also with the aff file like : > > > SFX A Y 1 > > > SFX 0 eka/BC . > > > > > > SFX B Y 1 > > > SFX 0 haru . > > > > > > SFX C Y 1 > > > SFX 0 le . > > > > > > Please do help me out! > > > with regards, > > > -- > > > Prajol Shrestha -- Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Prajol Shrestha Researcher/Developer Nepali Language Computing Project Madan Puraskar Pustakalaya www.mpp.org.np
