Personal orthographies

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Personal orthographies

Lars Aronsson

Some languages have large varieties in orthography, as a result of
spelling reforms that can be adopted in parts on an individual
basis.  For example, after the 1996 spelling reform, a German
writer can prefer to adopt the new spelling Fotografie (with F,
rather than Ph), while declining to abandon ß.  That writer would
like her spell checker to report an error for new spelling "dass"
and for old spelling Photographie.

What technical solutions exist to parameterize the generation of
spelling dictionaries?

One could imagine a parameterized German dictionary:

#!/bin/sh
ss=ß
ph=f
Ph=F
cat <<EOF
 Boot
 da${ss}
 Fu${ss}
 Katze
 ${Ph}otogra${ph}ie
EOF

where the official new orthography has ss=ss, ph=f; and the old
was ss=ß, ph=ph.  Users who want to abandon capitalization of
nouns could even set Ph=f or Ph=ph.

Has anything such been implemented?  Has this functionality been
considered as a part of Hunspell?

As the next step, would it be possible to design such a spell
checker that automatically adopts to the user's personal
orthography, without the user first having to declare her
preferences?

The same could be useful for distinguishing British from American
English.  If the user starts to write "colour", then the spell
checker would assume this user prefers British spelling, and would
warn against the use of "aluminum" and other Americanisms.

I guess Czech/Slovak and Serbian/Croatian could provide more
examples.  My closest reference is Swedish/Danish/Norwegian.


--
  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personal orthographies

Daniel Naber-9
On Tuesday 06 March 2007 23:45, Lars Aronsson wrote:

> For example, after the 1996 spelling reform, a German
> writer can prefer to adopt the new spelling Fotografie (with F,
> rather than Ph), while declining to abandon ß.

"Daß" doesn't exist anymore in the new German spelling. Of course nobody
can force you to use "dass", but mixing old and new spelling this way is
unfortunate. Your point is valid though, as there are several words that
have more than one correct spelling (e.g. Fotografie, Photografie, as you
mentioned).

The best way to control these spellings is probably using a grammar checker
that can also return a useful description of the problem. Using e.g.
LanguageTool (http://www.danielnaber.de/languagetool/) you could write an
XML rule that complains about "Photo" and suggests "Foto". A grammar
checker is also appropriate as many of the new spellings change whether a
phrase if written as one or two words and this cannot be controlled by the
spell checker.

Regards
 Daniel

--
http://www.danielnaber.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personal orthographies

ge-7
In reply to this post by Lars Aronsson
> What technical solutions exist to parameterize the generation of
> spelling dictionaries?

Check the REP section of the affix files.

-eleonora
--
"Feel free" - 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS/Monat ...
Jetzt GMX ProMail testen: www.gmx.net/de/go/mailfooter/promail-out

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]