root word and compounded word...

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

root word and compounded word...

Cthar
Hi,
Sorry, if my question seems to be non-relevance..
The question is...
Does the meaning of a word formed after applying the affixes have to be
related to its root word.
Or can it be different.

Thanks...

Regards,
Cthar.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root word and compounded word...

ge-7
>>
Hi,
Sorry, if my question seems to be non-relevance..
The question is...
Does the meaning of a word formed after applying the affixes have to be
related to its root word.
Or can it be different.
Thanks...
Regards,
Cthar.
<<

1. In which language?

2. compounding and affixing are very different things.

-eleonora


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root word and compounded word...

Cthar
In reply to this post by Cthar
1.       In Dzongkha (Asian Language that i am working in)
2.       I mean, root word and word formed after affixation to this root
word.
          Does the meaning of those words have to be related or can they
differ. Just curious to know since in my language many words can be formed
from a single root word after affixations, but in some case its meaning are
not related to its root word.

For example, in English, for a root word work, we have working, rework,
worked...etc. which all of them are related to the root word work.

Thanks.

Regards,
Cthar
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:15 PM, ge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >>
> Hi,
> Sorry, if my question seems to be non-relevance..
> The question is...
> Does the meaning of a word formed after applying the affixes have to be
> related to its root word.
> Or can it be different.
> Thanks...
> Regards,
> Cthar.
> <<
>
> 1. In which language?
>
> 2. compounding and affixing are very different things.
>
> -eleonora
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root word and compounded word...

ge-7
In reply to this post by Cthar
>>
2.       I mean, root word and word formed after affixation to this root
word.
          Does the meaning of those words have to be related or can they
differ. Just curious to know since in my language many words can be formed
from a single root word after affixations, but in some case its meaning are
not related to its root word.

For example, in English, for a root word work, we have working, rework,
worked...etc. which all of them are related to the root word work.
>>

There is no rule, that the meaning must be related.
You are free to choose the most convenient affixes.

However, if you later on want to use morphological analysis and
generation, (which has nothing to do with spell checking), then
you must rebuild the dictionary for that purpose and group
morphologically related words and affixes. Morphological
analysis and generation are useful for example for machine
translation and other language tools.

-eleonora


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root word and compounded word...

Olivier R.-2
In reply to this post by Cthar
Cthar Norbu a écrit :

> 1.       In Dzongkha (Asian Language that i am working in)
> 2.       I mean, root word and word formed after affixation to this root
> word.
>           Does the meaning of those words have to be related or can they
> differ. Just curious to know since in my language many words can be formed
> from a single root word after affixations, but in some case its meaning are
> not related to its root word.
>
> For example, in English, for a root word work, we have working, rework,
> worked...etc. which all of them are related to the root word work.

>> Hi,
>> Sorry, if my question seems to be non-relevance..
>> The question is...
>> Does the meaning of a word formed after applying the affixes have to be
>> related to its root word.
>> Or can it be different.
>> Thanks...
>> Regards,
>> Cthar.


Hello,

I would say it depends if you plan to create a only spelling dictionary
or something more than that.

In the first case, it does not matter if the meaning of an affixed word
is not related to the root word, for the goal of the spellchecker is
only to warn user if a word does not exists.

But if you plan to create something more than just a spelling
dictionary, it could be a good idea to do otherwise.

As you may have noticed, with Hunspell you can grammaticaly tag words.
So even if words have related meanings it would be easier to separate
them if their grammatical categories are different.

If a noun becomes a verb with an affix, it's better to create separate
entries.

Besides, prefixing words with flag rules is often confusing when it
comes to check if a word is already in the dictionary (if you write left
to right).

Olivier R.

--

== N'écrivez pas à cette adresse. Réservée aux listes de discussion. ==
** Do not reply at this address. Mailing-list only. **

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