WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


PEG Morphology Algorithm

posts: 1912


> I think I see. The above is the definition of "brivla-form" (not "brivla").
> A word that matches "brivla-form" may be a gismu, lujvo, fu'ivla, or
> invalid.

It may also be a cmavo+brivla ("tosmabru").

> The are some simple validity tests that can be applied to a
> brivla-form that do not require characterization, but full validation can't
> be done without characterization.

Right. And you can't be sure that you don't have a cmavo hiding there
either if you don't know what a lujvo is yet.

> But I still don't see why a word-partitioning parser, which has to deal with
> more word-forms and therefore needs additional complexity, couldn't use the
> simple brivla-form definition, and thereby reduce point-complexity.

There is no way that I know to partition a string into cmavo, brivla and
cmene without working out the details of brivla. If your string begins
with CV(V), you don't know if that is a cmavo or part of a brivla unless
you can figure out the brivla.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail