FONEM Rule V-10

[gewy]

Hi,
Rule V-10 seams to be incorrect.
The paper say : "Replace Y by I except if Y is between two vowels".
TYOU and YOU should give TIOU and IOU and not be inchanged.
Regards

[Yomguithereal]

Hello @gewy. Would you have some time to open a PR on the subject along with a unit test?

[Yomguithereal]

Hello @gewy. I just pushed a commit fixing rule V-10. I add to interpret some details of the paper to make this work because the way the algo is described is not completely sound. What do you think of the solution?

[gewy]

Hi, My implementation in Java :
new Rule("V-10", "(?<=^|[^aeiouy])y|y(?=[^aeiouy]|$)", "I");
Test on vowels is not necessary IMHO.
Having consonant on one side (or ^$) is enough to proove that we don't have vowels on both sides.

BTW I will check but I am not sure that C-27 and C-28 are corrects either.

[Yomguithereal]

new Rule("V-10", "(?<=^|[^aeiouy])y|y(?=[^aeiouy]|$)", "I");

Unfortunately JavaScript does not support lookbehind assertions in regex (at least not all engines, since lookbehinds were added recently to the specs).

BTW I will check but I am not sure that C-27 and C-28 are corrects either.

Fair enough. Tell me when you know and I'll make the required changes on my side.

[gewy]

new Rule("V-10", "(^|[^aeiouy])y|y([^aeiouy]|$)", "$1I$2");
do not work in JS ??

[gewy]

C-27 the document says Z with vowels BEFORE and you regex is Z(?=${V})

[gewy]

C-28 exclude SS between vowels, your regex check the right side only (cf. V-10)

[Yomguithereal]

I have simplified V-10 rule as per your suggestion. Concerning C-27, I have an interpretation question: should OZOUADE finally be OSWADE then (I am fine with this). But should POUYEZ become POUYES as per C-27 (I am less fine with this). Sorry if this is obvious but I did not read this paper since a very long time.

[Yomguithereal]

I have updated rule C-28.

[gewy]

Same feeling about rules. Anyway I was using uppercase and lowercase to easily identify the applied rules for my testing. Then I add the CASE_INSENSITIVE property to the matcher object. Le mer. 2 sept. 2020 à 17:22, Guillaume Plique <notifications@github.com> a écrit :

…

Also, I rely on some weird adhoc rule ordering because the paper's rules were not finely thought out but you seem to rely on an uppercase/lowercase trick to do the same. Do you find it easier likewise? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#175 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALPWWDSFWDFU7NUU6LM723SDZPL5ANCNFSM4QGWQY3A> .

[Yomguithereal]

So what did you choose regarding C-27? Do you get POUYES?