Article View: net.internat
Article #108Re: Hyphenation (Long message)
From: Frank Adams
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1985 06:19
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1985 06:19
46 lines
3038 bytes
3038 bytes
In article <501@harvard.ARPA> kosower@harvard.ARPA writes:
>Most native speakers will probably hyphenate
>at least a fair percentage of words by... looking them up in
>a printed dictionary.
Actually, I think most native speakers will put a hyphen in in a place
where they are reasonably sure one belongs, and will acheive a rather
high success rate at doing so. I do agree that fully interactive
hyphenation is unacceptable. However, a reasonably sized dictionary,
with resort to interaction instead of to an algorithm, seems to me
to be a viable option in many cases. From experience, I would say
that most words not found in a 30,000 or so word dictionary are proper
nouns, and not likely to be found even in a much larger dictionary.
>In fact, there are three significant numbers about any hyphenation
>mechanism ("mechanism" here includes dictionary lookup):
>
> o The percentage of incorrect hyphenations it produces.
>
> o The percentage of all possible hyphenations that it actually
> finds.
>
> o Its efficiency.
>
>Both of the first two numbers should of course be measured for realistic
>text samples, i.e. they should weighted for REALISTIC frequencies
>of word appearances. We want the first number to be as close to
>zero as possible, and the second number to be as close to 100%
>as possible. But while we would probably not tolerate a percentage
>of incorrect hyphens greater than about 5% (remember that hyphenation
>isn't all that frequent in most documents, so this already amounts
>to a rather infrequent error), we might well tolerate an algorithm
>that produces signficantly less than 100% of all possible hyphens,
>especially if the hyphens it does find break the word up into
>small enough chunks; I would estimate that a figure as low as 70 to
>80% might be acceptable here.
I would quibble with these figures. I think you want the first number
under 1% for a general purpose algorithm. On the other hand, I think
even 50% is quite adequate for the second. Since the Knuth-Liang
algorithm [description in original article not quoted here] apparently
meets these criteria, I will withdraw my claim.
Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<795@mmintl.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!frankaReferences:
<471@harvard.ARPA> <773@mmintl.UUCP> <968@enea.UUCP> <501@harvard.ARPA>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Newsgroups: net.internat Subject: Re: Hyphenation (Long message) Message-ID: <795@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Sat, 16-Nov-85 01:19:41 EST Article-I.D.: mmintl.795 Posted: Sat Nov 16 01:19:41 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 20-Nov-85 01:08:01 EST References: <471@harvard.ARPA> <773@mmintl.UUCP> <968@enea.UUCP> <501@harvard.ARPA> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Distribution: net Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 45