Question of a beginner in arabic. I feel that the idea of AFFIX or suffix is more related to latin language. Would it not be possible to work with those forms that are (as I feel) the basic of arabic. I remember trying to learn of the first, second form, and those faaEl faEl.... and so on. But of course that may seems easier when you're a beginner. Regards Armelle
Quoting Ahmad Khalifa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Abdalla Alothman wrote: > > Asalamu alaikum. > > Salam, > > > I did something exactly the same way because it was feasible. ;) > > > > I agree the approach is far from being organized. > > You mean you already have such a wordlist ? I would be interested > in taking a look at it, if you don't mind. I would like to see how it > performs in OO.o. > > >>This is where its difficulty lies. Defining the AFFIX rules and > >>writing a *flagged* wordlist. > > This is a real problem. > > If: > > رء٠> > is the root for: > > أرÙÙا٠> > chances for a findig a pragmatical way, or a decent pattern, could be > difficult. Not > > to mention that the AFFIX rules would be useless, in my humble opinion > (don't let me > > put you down). > > But consider AFFIX rules augmented with INFIX ?! :) > Not just PREfix, and SUFfix, but also INfix, which is insertion in the > middle by means of index. Ofcourse the INFIX approach would be costly to > adapt, as we'd have to submit patches to Aspell/Myspell and have INFIX > widely accepted. > > > For fun, consider modern Arabic terms -- one that I can't forget was > "maykanat" > > (automating). The root is MKN (e.g., wallatheena inn makkannaahum fil > ardh...). > > Problem is that the yaa comes exactly in the middle of the root. Same goes > for > > kitaab, the alif comes in the middle of the root. If you could solve such > cases, > > I would be very much interested to see your work. > > The way I see it, we have two options. > 1- Add INFIX to the AFFIX rules. That way you can describe KETAB by > flagging the root KTB > 2- Add KETAB as an entry of its own beside KTB. That way you can combine > KETAB easily with the 'AL' prefix rule, PLUS you still get only one > entry for the 15 entries of KTB. > > I am in favour of the second approach. Its faster to adapt, does not > cost much, and would make it easier to define rules for NOUNS. > Its only downside is that for most root verbs that can be derived to > nouns, you get 2 or 3 entries. 1 for the verb and its derivatives, 1 for > the noun KETAB, and one for the MAKTAB noun. > I think 3 entries per root beats 17 entries, no ? > > Right now, ammar is working on elzubeir's "Arabic Grammer Rules" > document, > http://cvs.arabeyes.org/viewcvs/projects/duali/doc/arabic-grammar > > I think its the key to developing all the AFFIX rules, as we need to > formally categorize ALL the arabic language words to be able to write > the AFFIX rules. > > When the document is finished, we can better estimate the need for INFIX > > Please let me know what you think of the two approaches above. > > > I wish you goodluck insha-Allah. > > Thank you. > > -- > Salam, > Ahmad Khalifa > _______________________________________________ > Developer mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer >
_______________________________________________ Developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
