Re: [native-lang] Status update season!

On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 01:16:37AM +0100, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> 
> > > Swedish dictionary (which is from 2003, but almost unchanged since 
> > > 1997) has 24,489 basic forms and expands to 118,270 variations.  
> > > This is clearly inferior.
> > 
> > So here you see another problem. If a language has lots of variations of
> > a single word, how can you judge that not 12000 of the expanded words
> > are based on "useless" words (not in widespread use, hiding typos,...)
> > or the other way round: You cannot tell that the important ones are
> > present. 
> 
> What I can tell you is that it is impossible to cover the 
> important words in Swedish if your expanded list only contains 
> 118,270 words unless they were hand-picked, and I know they are 
> not.
> 
> You seem to be of the opinion that this task is impossible, but it 
> is not. 

The topic was: Measuring the quality/comparing the quality of
dictionaries. Having a tag "x% completed" or something.
My point is: You cannot judge it by the number of words alone (apart
from telling that a dictionary is really bad). 

But unfortunately the topic seems to drift away becasue of
misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations :-(

ciao
Christian
-- 
NP: Pantera - Walk