W dniu 29.07.2016 o 13:57, Mike Unwalla pisze:
> 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.
Right. I adapted the file filter-archaic.txt to remove this (I remove
other contractions already). The file is in the resources folder.
>
> (Aside: I could not see how to remove the readings using only 1 token. But,
> I made a test rule.)
You can easily do that in many ways. For example, by making the token to
have just one reading. This comes from the Polish file:
<rule name="MIMO to nie wołacz" id="MIMO_NIE_VOC">
<pattern>
<token postag="prep:gen">mimo</token>
</pattern>
<disambig postag="prep:gen"/>
</rule>
I required "mimo" to have the POS "prep:gen" but of course that was a
part of a larger sequence.
>
> 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>
Yes, but this one should have the base form 'haven', not 'have'. And
indeed, there's 'haven' as a verb in many dictionaries, and in Keats:
haven
/"heɪv(ə)n/
v. LME. [f. the n.]
† v.i. Go into or shelter in a haven. LME–E17.
v.t. Put (a ship etc.) into a haven. Now chiefly fig., give shelter
to, protect. E17.Quotation
KEATS Blissfully haven'd both from joy and pain.
>
Regards,
Marcin
> 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
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Languagetool-devel mailing list
Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
