--- Marco Cimarosti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hallo, Mr. Sengupta. > > > Now let's consider the same pair of inputs in *my* > > representation. They would be K+R+VIRAMA+I and > > J+VIRAMA+AA+I. All that the morphological analyzer > would > > have to do is chop off the rightmost <I>. The > leftovers > > are exactly what we need: K+R+VIRAMA and > J+VIRAMA+AA. > > Well, it sounds a bit like saying that automobiles > should have square wheels > because that works much better when the car climbs > over a staircase...
The analogy is a wee bit far fetched since you have not shown that my wheels wouldn't run on ordinary roads. :) > I do agree that square wheels are better for > climbing stairs, and that your > representation is better for writing morphological > analyzers (whatever in > the world a "morphological analyzer" might be). Well, machine-readable texts are of no use unless they are going to be accessed by people through computer programs. Let's say morphological analyzers constitute a class of such programs that are very basic and essential to all kinds of natural language processing (that ought to ring a bell) tasks. > However, you probably agree that climbing stairs is > not exactly the primary > purpose of automobiles, so why do you think that > implementing morphological > analyzers should be the primary purpose of a > character encoding? What exactly is the primary purpose of a character encoding scheme? In all domains of scientific inquiry there are certain principles for discriminating between theories and choosing one above the other. What is the evaluation metric for encoding schema? :-) Best, Gautam. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
