Marcin, thanks.
Except for the removal of VBP, I decided to make no changes to the
disambiguation at this time, for these reasons:
1. In disambiguation.xml, if I remove the readings MD and VBP from 'haven'
if it is not MD (that is, it is not part of "haven't"), my problem is not
solved. This suggestion:
<suggestion><match no="1" postag="VB.*">have</match></suggestion>
shows 'haven' in the list of suggestions.
(Aside: I could not see how to remove the readings using only 1 token. But,
I made a test rule.)
2. I found a few examples of 'haven' as a verb on the NOW Corpus (News on
the Web) (http://corpus.byu.edu/now/). Example, "Commodities Traders flocked
to haven assets Friday, with gold jumping almost five per cent."
The simplest solution to my problem is to use a rulegroup in grammar.xml.
One rule contains
<suggestion>have</suggestion>
rather than
<match no="1" postag="VB.*">have</match>
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcin Milkowski [mailto:list-addr...@wp.pl]
<snip>
I'd use the second method because this is what I did with other similar
cases. It's mostly because I used to write disambiguation files to
remove readings rather than to add ones. But either way will do.
BTW: VBP is most definitely wrong, as 'have' cannot be negated as a
normal verb by using a contraction.
Best,
Marcin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Languagetool-devel mailing list
Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
