Yes and no. MorphGNT uses the Packard morphology. Robinson covers
everything in Packard and then some, so I converted the Packard codes to
Robinson format. It should be out in the next release of MorphGNT if
it's not in the current one.
--Chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is great. I was
This is great. I was looking into doing something similar for my work. Do
you also include James Tauber's system, from
_http://morphgnt.org/projects/ccat-morphgnt_
(http://morphgnt.org/projects/ccat-morphgnt) . This has some
differences from the others.
Peace,
David
**S
I'm no expert in the C++ end, but when I implemented Robinson morphology in
Visual Basic, I found the parsing option was quite easy and effective. It
sure beats trying to list all the possible combinations, and their
interpretations.
Peace,
David
**Start the year off righ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris,
> I appreciate you helping to clear some confusion here since I think
> that I helped with some of nudging. This is great news, since all Greek
> modules will have a common morph reference. I think covering all the
> combinations in the known works would be ade
DM Smith wrote:
> Chris, given this I don't think that it serves much purpose to put
> this into a module.
>
> I see two advantages in encoding this:
> 1) It is straightforward, much simpler and much smaller. Which will
> translate into very fast (no I/O).
It's not entirely straightforward
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Chris Little wrote:
> We gave a new Greek morphology in the pipeline to replace virtually
> all of our existing morphologies, and I would be interested to hear
> people's opinions or concerns, considering it does represent a certain
> amount of change from the current system.
Chris,
I appreciate you helping to clear some confusion here since I think
that I helped with some of nudging. This is great news, since all Greek
modules will have a common morph reference. I think covering all the
combinations in the known works would be adequate since most of the
works are n
On Jan 26, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Chris Little wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2008, at 4:57 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I'm a bit dense, I don't see how the module would grow from
>> 150K to 2000K. Can we do key linking? And that if it would be encoded
>> into the engine that the size increase would be sm
On Jan 26, 2008, at 4:57 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> Perhaps I'm a bit dense, I don't see how the module would grow from
> 150K to 2000K. Can we do key linking? And that if it would be encoded
> into the engine that the size increase would be small.
>
> As to adding parsing/normalization to JSword, we
Perhaps I'm a bit dense, I don't see how the module would grow from
150K to 2000K. Can we do key linking? And that if it would be encoded
into the engine that the size increase would be small.
As to adding parsing/normalization to JSword, we already do that wrt
Strong's numbers and also Devo
We gave a new Greek morphology in the pipeline to replace virtually
all of our existing morphologies, and I would be interested to hear
people's opinions or concerns, considering it does represent a certain
amount of change from the current system.
Presently we have 3 morphologies in use:
1)
11 matches
Mail list logo
