Quote:
Originally Posted by Doitsu
The StarDict input formats are indeed poorly documented, but StarDict does support inflections.
Since you're probably still fully convinced that I'm wrong, please find attached a small English-French proof-of-concept dictionary with four entries and inflections.
It'll find the singular and plural forms of mouse and louse and the conjugated verb forms of bring and catch. The .babylon source file is included.
|
This is not support for morphology and/or inflections. This is support for synonyms, as I already mentioned above. And also the files you attached are simply in the StarDict format just like it is (indeed very well) documented here:
http://code.google.com/p/babiloo/wiki/StarDict_format
I already talked about "simulating" morphology support using the synonyms feature of StarDict. And it is definitely insane simulating morphology support in this way whenever the language is a bit more complex - for Hungarian, Ancient Greek or even German the synonyms file would become incredibly large and you wouldn't even end up with "proper" morphology support.
Have a look at
http://www.manpagez.com/man/4/hunspell/ for an example of how support for morphology could technically look like. For a reasonably complex language like French you only need about 1.4 MB of (uncompressed!) data in order to support basic morphology features in hunspell. With the StarDict synonym file you would definitely need more...
// EDIT
Btw: If the OP had talked about simple morphology simulation using synonyms, he wouldn't have reported that this is not working with ColorDict because ColorDict has perfect support for synonym files!