Quote:
Originally Posted by Doitsu
You obviously don't understand the difference between inflections and synonyms. For example, "brought" is an inflection not a synonym of "bring" and any dictionary software that allows users to find a headword by searching for an inflected form does support inflections.
|
According to your interpretation of "StarDict supports morphology" a synonym is technically the same as an inflection. It is your own examplary dictionary that uses the synonyms feature of StarDict to store inflections. That is all, I'm refering to. I'm well aware of the definition of a synonym and an inflection respectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doitsu
No s/he did not. If you re-read his/her post you'll find that s/he mentions that searching for "worked" didn't bring up the entry for "work" and "worked" just so happens to be an inflection of "work." (Not once did s/he mention synonyms.)
|
You got me wrong here. The OP complains that ColorDict does not support morphology with his StarDict dictionaries. I just assumed your definition of "StarDict supports morphology" and thus concluded: "ColorDict does not support the synonyms feature of StarDict". But this is just false. That's all I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doitsu
That page explains the binary format used by StarDict, not the .babylon source format that I used.
|
I assumed, we had a discussion about the features of the StarDict format and not about some arbitrary dictionary format you mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doitsu
The synonym file would be indeed a bit larger, but it doesn't significantly delay the lookup speed. For example, I created an Arabic-English StarDict dictionary with more than 80000 entries whose lookup speed is about the same as other languages on my ancient iPhone, even though most entries had on average 35+ inflection definitions.
|
In this I must admit at least, that such a synonyms file wouldn't exceed 100 MB and might even stay at fairly under 50 MB which is a no-brainer for today's hardware specs, even if the data is stored in an array/a list at runtime. Since it's stored in a database anyway in most cases, it shouldn't be much of a problem in most cases even on weak hardware.
Let me conclude: I'm well aware of your definition of "StarDict supports morphology" now and I accept that definition, in order to get some progress in this thread. We can now proceed with the OPs question. Does ColorDict support morpholgy? Because I'm using ColorDict on a daily basis using dictionaries that do make heavy use of the ".syn" file of the StarDict format, I have to say: Yes, ColorDict supports morphology.
The OP reports that ColorDict does not show the entry for "work", when he looks up "worked". Hence we conclude, that his dictionary does not have the entry "worked" in its ".syn" file. The only thing we have to clarify now: How come, that his desktop application does indeed show the entry "work" when he is looking up "worked", even though "worked" is not in the ".syn" file of the dictionary?