-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Tracing application of lexicon rules #9
Comments
Not really, I'm afraid. :( The problem is that you compile your lexc grammar into an FST first, and you run that -- you never run the lexicon itself. Your solution (also in #10) of adding debugging symbols is probably the best you can do. In this particular case, you can |
Well, a pity. This would have been quite cool. Nevertheless, the dummy symbol method is quite usable, surprisingly so in fact. If anyone has a similar problem I can recommend it with ease. |
It's basically the foma equivalent of debugging with |
Hello everyone,
Is there a way through which I'd be able to trace which rules in my lexicons have been applied when a surface form is transduced into a deep representation? I mean apart from "instrumenting" my lexicon rules with dummy tag identifiers which tell me unambiguously which rule was applied? I have a minor problem: my grammar is correct in a sense that it finds the appropriate representation, but it finds it twice. And I can't seem to pinpoint the cause. It is related to the superlative form of adjectives. If the word contains the -bb postfix, then there are always two solutions, completely identical. Since I believe only one derivation is possible, I'm very interested which two derivations did apply_up find. I already printed the automaton with draw_net, but it is not evident to me how that automaton could recognize the word twice.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: