On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 01:16:37AM +0100, Lars Aronsson wrote: > Christian Lohmaier wrote: > > > > Swedish dictionary (which is from 2003, but almost unchanged since > > > 1997) has 24,489 basic forms and expands to 118,270 variations. > > > This is clearly inferior. > > > > So here you see another problem. If a language has lots of variations of > > a single word, how can you judge that not 12000 of the expanded words > > are based on "useless" words (not in widespread use, hiding typos,...) > > or the other way round: You cannot tell that the important ones are > > present. > > What I can tell you is that it is impossible to cover the > important words in Swedish if your expanded list only contains > 118,270 words unless they were hand-picked, and I know they are > not. > > You seem to be of the opinion that this task is impossible, but it > is not.
The topic was: Measuring the quality/comparing the quality of dictionaries. Having a tag "x% completed" or something. My point is: You cannot judge it by the number of words alone (apart from telling that a dictionary is really bad). But unfortunately the topic seems to drift away becasue of misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations :-( ciao Christian -- NP: Pantera - Walk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
