i wanted to say tree leaves instead of tree nodes, because i use constituency trees (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parse_tree ) and there are morphemes only at leaf nodes and there are phrases at internal nodes. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure). (and i use binary trees). but i see (now from wikipedia) that saying "nodes" is also ok (and maybe even better taking in account that tree can be dependency tree), because "leafs" are also "nodes" in tree data structure (i had forgotten it, though i know that from dom tree... ). (and i see that node is also named "vertex" in graph theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertex_(graph_theory) ).
2017-07-20 15:25 GMT+03:00 dinar qurbanov <[email protected]>: > "words" are [scientifically] baseless things! > > where from they have come? just from spaces between them. who and why > decided to put spaces there? i think they had not good proofs, else we > would know that proofs. i know only theory about lexemes to put in > dictionaries, and their word forms. > > also "words" in grammar come from old grammars written in old times > for latin, arabic, etc. but it is not authoritative source. you should > know how much errors were in old sciences of chemistry, medicine, > astronomy. > > as i know apertium already does not stick with traditional words, for > example, as i know, for turkic languages some words which are written > separately are used as word modifier tags in apertium. > > but still lemmas with modifier tags are used in apertium and as i know > there is no way to show whether some another word is used with lemma > only, or with lemma with some suffix(es)... > > but i think real atoms of syntax are morphemes and it is an idea > written by several authors in several books. > > also i think that syntax and morpholgy should be redivided and > renamed. one of them (syntax?) should include all trees in both of > syntax and morphology. (similar idea is also suggested in a book). and > part of morphology should go to a science named like "surface > decoration of syntax trees". > > difference is in possible different priority/order of using morphemes. > in many cases resulting meaning is similar, because in that cases > a(bc) = (ab)c ; it can be written "a bc" but it can have meaning (ab)c > and there can be not much practical problem if translation program > uses it as a(bc), since a(bc) = (ab)c. for example "a" can be an > adverb, "b" - a verb and "c" - gerund suffix. for example, "frankly > speaking". > > i can give an example when this has practical differences. in turkic > languages verb negation suffix is written sticked and in apertium it > is also used as a tag. usually adverb is used with verb stem (ie to > part without negation suffix) and negation is used to the phrase > consisting of verb and adverb. for example: "кызу бармады" - "qozu > barmado" in tatar is "did not go fast" and has structure "{{кызу > бар}ма}ды" - "did not {go fast}". but you cannot use this as a rule, > similarly written sequence of morphemes can has also another > structure: "бөтенләй эшләмәде" - "botonlay islamadi" means > "(he/she/it/they) has not worked at all" and it has structure > "{бөтенләй} {эшләмәде}" - "{did not work} {at all}" , or "{{бөтенләй} > {эшләмә}}де" - "did {{not work} {at all}}". ( alternatively it could > have structure "{{{бөтенләй эшлә}мә}де}" and meaning "did not make > wholly" - "did not {make wholly}". ) > > to translate this correctly from tatar to english you should better > use morphemes as atoms, as tree nodes instead of words, because you > should find correct tree structure before you translate, and you > should be able to set morphemes at correct places of tree. as i > remember apertium does not use syntax trees at all for now, or uses > them only for some language pairs, or you have some instrument for > them and experimenting with them, but sets words as word forms in tree > nodes. > > probably there are also other examples with other suffixes. there is > also imperative mood suffix in tatar language, with which i expect to > find similar example, and i do not completely deny such problem with > other suffixes like negation and gerund suffixes when translating from > some language to some language. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
