On Monday 25 July 2005 11:04, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
On Saturday 23 July 2005 10:13, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
On Friday 22 July 2005 13:25, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Then I have misunderstood the database design :( I believed at first that inflections would be stored in "inflection" table. Now when I understand the design better, I don't think that it is a good idea to have separate "word" for each inflection because it brings a lot of unneccesary redudance, and much room for error. For example, it would be possible to mark "whiter" as an adverb and "white" as a verb! And then, imagine the horror which would ensue if someone would use wrong PartOfSpeech for base word and now it has to be changed for 100 inflections...
Though this would be a crucial change, please think about it. I think that "word" table should contain only lemmas.
Right, well this is very much a design decision. The inflections will have to be entered by hand. And if some poor sod does enter all these inflections and they are wrong, there will be the need for an other poor sod to remove them.
Well, I see it as a bad design decision.
First, the inflections don't have to be entered by hand. If a word is not irregular, the inflections could, and should, be entered automatically.
Second, I don't understand this boasting of a flaw. If a problem with database structure is noticed, it should be solved. At the very very least it should be concluded that the problem can't be solved. Instead you are telling me that users will have to work around the problem. I knew that already, but do you see a solution?
relevant for the inflections and the headword.. A Wordtype indicates a noun a verb an adjective etc.
I still don't understand why is gender singled out of all properties a word could have. For example, a verb could be transitive or intransitive, and this information is important. To give an example:
[...]
At this moment in time I would not have intransitive verbs or transitive verbs at all. To me they are verbs. When they are transitive, they have a different meaning from when they are intransitive so to me the destinction is in the meaning.
OK, for a better example, why not number? Perhaps transitivity doesn't, but number also affects inflection, much as gender does.
When it comes to meaning, all the inflections can share the same meaning. The number (first, second, third person) will be implied by the Inflection in the table Inflection-Word. (at this moment it still says Conjugation in this table)
By number I meant singular/plural. But regardless, why then gender wouldn't be specified in inflection-word?
I was thinking about something else; for example, on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/account there is this example: "A beggarly account of empty boxes. - Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, V-i"; but I understand now it is going to be just a part of "meaningtext". I'm not so certain, but maybe it would be good to create a separate table for examples, because same examples could (and probably will) be used in "meaningtext"s in different languages. It would also make it easier to automatically add new examples (for example, by grepping Project Gutenberg ;)
"A beggarly account of empty boxes" is a quote and why not have it as a seperate Word and marked as such ?? It would be a idiom for "account" and this is linked through Relation. Many famous quotes have been translated and we could have them all. (Een paard , een paard, een koninkrijk voor een paard)
Because, ideally each word (in each language) should have an example or two, and so the number of examples would approach the number of words; and, it would become impossible to distinguish between notable quotes (Kingdom for a horse!), which occur frequently, need a description, and need to be canonically translated, and non-notable quotes, which are in the wiktionary only to be used as examples of use for other words, need not have a description, and translators won't encounter them at all.
The idioms, proverbs and quotes will be "Word" records in their own right. So we have to be selective in the idiom that we choose. What is new ?? That is what the editorial process is for. For instance for the Dutch French speaking people the phrase "Papa fume un pipe" is famous and as such it is noteworthy but its significance will bewilder the French.. :)
Problem is, for ultimate majority of words we will have to choose a non-notable quote as an example.
Maybe we don't understand each other: maybe this isn't the case with other languages, but in a dictionary of Serbian that I have, *EACH* word has at least one, usually two, sometimes even more examples, from common words like "what" to rare and complex words. At least for Serbian and other languages with same lexicographic tradition we will want to do the same in the Wiktionary.
I do not think grepping Project Gutenberg makes much sense. If anything it helps you find occurances of the word but you have to be selective of what to include. That is an editorial process and just the fact that a word is used does not make for a good idiom in the UW.
I think it would make sense for rarer words, which might occur once or a few times in entire Gutenberg's corpus. Of course, at the end a human editor has to decide whether a quote is really relevant.
Related to grepping Project Gutenberg, have you considered adding information on word frequency? Only a single new table is needed, "frequency", with fields "spellingID", "corpus" and "frequency"; eventually "corpus" colud become "corpusID".
There is more to frequency than that. If anything grep may find it but you still need to know the meaning of the word in that text. When the
This is why "frequency" is related to "spelling" and not to "meaning". Change of meaning is not the only useful thing which could be gathered from a frequency analysis.
word gets a new meaning, that is what you want to know .. I will speak to the people of Rotterdam CS (developers of Lucene) about just these kind of issues.
A corpus could (would) be as small as a single text, usually a book. So, you would be able to extract frequency in any desired timespan, or observe how it changes over time.
I agree, it is not a dialect, but if some words are recognisable as belonging to a distinctive group of words, they should somehow be marked as belonging to it, and I was suggesting that they are marked in a same way they would be marked as belonging to a certain dialect. Another solution would be to use "wordrelation" table instead, even though it isn't meant to be used in that way :)
Collection is the mechanism of choise for this. Relation is to indicate thesaurus like structures including antonymes..
Wait, "collection" is related to "meaning" and not to "word". I don't see how could it be used for such things. It would be possible to have names of Asterix characters/Disney characters/whatever grouped together, and that is good. But it still isn't possible to distinguish between two groups of translations of names of Asterix characters. It would be possible to have all words related to seamanship grouped together, but it would not be possible to mark which of these are dockworkers' slang, which are sailors' slang, and which are not slang.