Hi László,
Thank you for the explanations.
zero suffixes have the biggest overhead. Word analysis checks *all* zero
affix rules for every input words and suggestion candidates. There are too
many zero affixes in your affix table:
So, if I had understood properly, it is quicker for Hunspell to strip
and add, than to strip and add nothing.
For instance:
SFX F. nne n [aeo]nne .mas
is better than
SFX F. ne 0 [aeo]nne .mas
Right?
That is not intuitive. I suggest that this should be explained in the
documentation, to prevent others to make bloated stuff as I did. :)
Also it would be better to decrease the redundant suffixes (with different
stripping characters) of irregular words by (1) pseudoroots with NEEDAFFIX
flags or (2) generating from common suffixed forms or simply by (3) new
dictionary items.
OK. I'll try this, if removing 0 affixes is not sufficunt.
Actually, I already use a lot the NEEDAFFIX flag, but in a different
way. On the 60,000 entries, ~28,000 are tagged with it (among them, all
the 7,000 verbs).
The 0 affixes issue makes me wondering how things work with the
conditional field... :)
For example, if I have several verbs which end by 'cevoir'. I have a
flag for these verbs and only for them.
Which way is it better to write the conditional field?
With
- a long field, ie: cevoir
- a short field, ie: ir
- no condition, ie: .
?
If possible, is full word condition advised or not advised ?
Thank you for helping.
Best regards,
Olivier
--
== N'écrivez pas à cette adresse. Dédiée aux listes de discussion. ==
** Do not write at this address. Mailing-list only. **
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
