Iloko Spell Check: Status

It has been a very long time since I posted about the Iloko spell check.

Hunspell

As a refresher, the spell check is composed of rules to use with Hunspell spell-checker and morphological analyzer library (Wikipedia, Github) to verify the spelling of words for a specific language or language variant. There are many languages that already have spell-check dictionaries available. Hunspell is integrated with many software titles, some of which you may be using already. One that comes to mind is Mozilla Firefox. (I already have an Add-On to use with Firefox in the works. But, that is for another post.) Another two that also come to mind are LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org. Both are productivity suites for word processing, data base management, slideshow, etc.

Files

In order for Hunspell to verify words, two files are needed. These are plain-text files and can be read/written with any text editor. Once you understand how the file is formatted, it is easy to understand how everything relates.

The first of the files is the “Dictionary” file (ilo.dic). It is the simplest of the files and contains a list of “entries”, roots or stems, that the spell-checker can recognize to create correctly spelt words. Each is associated with “flags” or tags that specify attributes or operations that can be performed on the entry. For example, a flag can specify that the entry is only valid if capitalized. So, “Philippines” is valid, but “philippines” is not. (Even in my application, the former is underlined with the ubiquitous “red, squiggly line” indicating that it is incorrect.) Or, the entry can be flagged as one that the spell-checker should recognize but it should not suggest. These are usually “non-standard” words or offensive words. But, the majority of the flags refer to “affixes” that can be applied to create valid words. These affixes are specified in the other file.

The other file is the “Affix” file (ilo.aff). As the name suggest, it contains information about the affixes used in the language. It also includes other basic information about the target language, information such as the language (or variant) name and which script the language is written in. But, the bulk is “affix classes” or groups of rules that specify how they can combine with entries in the dictionary file. Examples of affixes in English are the ‹-ed› for the past tense in English or the ‹re-› prefix that shows repetition. The affixes can be as simple as the two just mentioned, but something like the “-s” plural require a few rules to specify how it is applied. So, there are rules to turn ‹y› to ‹ie› or add ‹e› after a word that ends in ‹ch›, ‹s›, ‹x› or ‹z› before adding ‹s›.

Iloko

After a few attempts, I believe that I’ve struck upon a system to organize the affixes in the affix file for Iloko. Simply put, it uses a divide-and-conquer methodology.

Reduplication, a process where part or all of a root or stem is repeated, is a major consideration and contributed to the size of the file. Since Hunspell does not have a built-in mechanism, rules targeting specific syllables are needed. In my latest scheme, sets of reduplicate syllables are considered as just affix classes or “duplifixes”, repeate parts of a stem that carry meaning. And, the affixes “proper” constitute as their own affix classes. (More about this in another post.)

Currently, the affix file is rather extensive and still a bit larger than even Hungarian’s (77KB), a language notorious for its agglutinative morphology. Iloko’s stands at five MB and takes time to load. The culprit  is reduplication as mentioned previously. It is very productive in Iloko and signals various grammatical categories (e.g., pluralization, aspect, etc.), and as such, separate rules are needed to match reduplicated syllables. Many of the affix classes have as many as 1,200 rules. Up for consideration is that some of the affixes could be eliminated and the words they create (or predict) be separate entries in the dictionary file. Nevertheless, the current schemes appears to be working after some testing. And, as I continue testing anything that is awry is diagnosed and fixed. But, so far there haven’t been any further issues that I’ve found with the affixes nor how their rules are specified.

The dictionary file is slowly growing as I add entries and associate the applicable affixes. But, this is a meticulous task because not all roots or stems can take all affix classes. I am using Carl Rubino’s Ilokano Dictionary since it is root-based and takes away any guessing. At the same time, I have to rely on my own recollection (good or bad) to assign affix classes. Currently, there are about 3,000 entries. They include the following closed classes:

• Functional words (conjunctions, adpositions, the ligature)
• Determinatives (e.g., “this”, “those”, “the”)
• Pronouns (e.g., “I”, “them”)
• Interjections (e.g., “Susmaryosep!”, “Ukinnamon!”)
• Numbers (including Spanish numbers) and quantifiers (e.g., “all”, “some”, “kilo”)
• Time related words (days of the weeks, months, general time: "day”, “night”)

Other classes, included:

• Irregular formations (mostly verbs and quasi-verbs)
• Kinship terms with irregular plurals
• Countries and regions

Other roots and stems are being added as I have time.

My original plan to add entries in the dictionary file was to find the most commonly used roots found in Iloko literature. Instead of creating a corpus, a collection of text, I decided to approach Glosbe who has an Iloko corpus. I sent them an email talking about what my aim was over a month ago. I have yet to receive a response to my inquiry. In the meantime, I am investigating statistical models and Iloko blogs whose content I can use in my analysis to focus and refine my efforts rather than entering everything in Rubino’s dictionary.

Goals:

• 1st public beta - 30-50% recognition
• 2nd public beta - 50%+ recognition
• 3rd public beta - 60%+ recognition
• nth public beta - increasing recognition
• Version 1.0 - 80%+

With those numbers in mind, I’ve planned on having the first beta by the middle of June, 2018. It will be in the form of an Add-On for Mozilla Firefox, and extension for LiberOffice (6.1.x) and a DSpellCheck, a plug-in for Notepad++. As of right now, the files are posted to GitHub (https://github.com/joemaza/spellcheck/tree/master/dictionaries/ilo) if you would like to view them.

Spell Checker - On Reduplication

Introduction

Reduplication is a process of repeating all or part of a root or a stem and signals some sort of grammatical function.

Reduplication in Iloko is very productive and can be applied to various word categories. It marks the following:

• Plurality in nouns and in verbs (plural arguments in focus)
• Limitation – “only one”
• Progressive action in verbs
• Intensification in adjectives and adverbs
• Repetition in verbs

Doing the Math

Much of the reduplication in Iloko affects the beginning of the root or stem, involving the first consonant-vowel or consonant-vowel-consonant.

Hunspell rules to need to be written to match these combinations. As a result, rules tend toward the several hundred. (No kidding!) More often than not reduplication also combines with an affix. This base number is then multiplied by the different forms of the affix to show further inflection and further increases the number into the few more thousands. Then, there are alternate forms because of phonological processes (e.g., progressive assimilation) or alternate forms.

The affix file now becomes a great pain to manage because it takes too long to load. Even a simple text editor is not programmed to handle files of such a size.

There are a few hundred affixes in Iloko and many require reduplication. Soon the size of the Iloko affix file is ballooning to a whopping 30 MB. Compared to the Hungarian affix file (7 MB), a language known for its agglutinative morphology, this seems unreasonable and has a direct impact on the load time, something that end user will notice (and complain about).

Reducing the Size

If there were a problem with just one rule, it was difficult to root out the cause. Text editors would hang after loading or saving the file.

The number one goal becomes reducing size and manageability.

I had to rethink the entire approach and experiment.

Redundancy

The first problem with my initial approaches was redundancy. The same set of reduplication rules were repeated. It wasn’t necessary to create rules for each combination of an prefix form and reduplicated syllable.

Why can’t one affix class be responsible for just reduplicated syllables? Why can’t another be responsible for inflectional morphology?

To solve this, I devised a divide-and-conquer approach.

I created an affix class for the reduplicated syllables and had them reference the associated class that contained the prefix forms, which in turn, referenced the proper set of suffixes.

Granted, there are affix classes for reduplication and they share similar rules, if not exactly the same ones in the new affix file. But, the prefixes or suffixes they refer to differ. I tried to stamp out redundancy all together. But, I’m satisfied with this compromise. The reduplication classes have just a couple thousand rules which is easier to manage. If there is a problem, it’s usually the prefix that they refer to.

The next issue to address dealt with redundancy with circumfixes.

Circumfixes Create Bloat

As stated many times, Hunspell only recognizes prefixes and suffixes. That said, it does have a mechanism to recognize a pair of prefixes and suffixes together as one unit to create a circumfix by use of an operational flag. Iloko has a number of circumfixes, so this is a welcome feature.

Regardless, the feature would allow one prefix and one suffix pairing. So, dividing the responsibilities of inflected prefixes rules and reduplication rule between two set was not possible. Again, what was needed was a set of rules numbering in the thousands for each probable permutation.

I didn’t gain much space or peace of mind with circumfixes.

It’s a Prefix… Sort of

In the end, I decided to forego the circumfix feature and treat circumfixes as if they were prefixes.

First, I implemented the divide and conquer approach: One set of rule or an affix class was responsible for reduplication and other classes for the inflected prefix forms – From several thousand, to just under two. This dealt with the left side of the root.

Second, separate entries for –EN or –AN or both were created in the dictionary file. Special suffix rules handled the various pronoun and enclitic forms. As a result, what was repeated needlessly, was reduced to a few affixes classes that could be shared among the prefixes. The only caveat is that the prefixes MUST be used with the right dictionary entry; they already reference the right suffix classes.

Slimmed and Trimmed

I must say that I’m happy with this approach.

What had been a text file, A TEXT FILE, of several megabytes (20+) has been reduced to one of just under four at 3.6MB. It’s also more manageable to edit and to suss problems out. In addition, dictionary load times are shorter, too, something that end users should not notice which is a good thing.

That’s Not Attested!

A while ago when I was pondering the possible combinations of the infix <INN> of Iloko. I thought of two possible ways that it could inflect. I could not determine which was "correct", so I asked for the opinions of Iloko speakers on a Facebook group. I was told that one was possible because of Iloko phonotactics, yet was "unattested" and that other areas where Iloko is spoken might not use the form. There were other suggestions on words to use, but I am of the mind that when asking, I focus on what I presented and I wasn’t not seeking alternatives.

It was acknowledge that the forms did not “violate” the phonotactics of Iloko, although, it was a bit contrived and that it was well-formed, nevertheless.

I prefaced that the response would affect how I crafted the soon-to-be spelling dictionary. Existing literature can be used when testing the spellchecker to ensure that it is working correctly. But, the main purpose of a spelling dictionary is to check for words that are in the process of BEING written. The purpose is NOT to check the spelling of something that has ALREADY been written.

Although the responder meant well, he missed the point entirely. It is this idea of disallowing what is possible for the restrictive confines of what has been that I have had to work with. I can be rather frustrating and it is hard to find someone who can strike a balance between the two as a resource as it is also a cultural critique: What is already establish is “right”; deviations or innovations are undesirable.

How to Simulate Reduplication in Hunspell

Reduplication is a process where a part of or the whole root or stem is repeated. It is use for both inflection and derivation in Iloko.

In my approach, reduplicated whole roots or stems are listed as different entries in the *.dic file. First of all, creating a rule to predict the reduplicated form of a whole root or stem is not practical. Second, words derived from this type of reduplication can change lexical categories and meaning, i.e., derivation. For example, saka-saka (adjective) “barefoot” from saka (noun) “foot” is listed as an entry in the *.dic file and it is tagged with the affix classes that can be applied to it.

saka/xy
saka-saka/ab

Hunspell does not have a mechanism for reduplication, whole or partial. It is only capable of only dealing with what it considers prefixes and suffixes. There had to be a way to reproduce reduplication using its framework of rules! Unfortunately, it has deterred at least one person’s attempt at creating a spell-check dictionary for Tagalog as shown in the following thread: helping to implement a grammar checker...[sic].

Nevertheless, reduplication is possible if you “think outside the box”. To simulate the process, we must use the same approach used for infixation: create “compound prefixes”!

Partial word reduplication centers around the first syllable of the root (at least in Iloko and Tagalog). And, it is the syllable that we have to write the rules for. The first syllable can be any one of the following types: V, VC, CV and CVC. (V = vowel; C = consonant).

5 vowels
14 final consonants
25 initial consonants and consonant clusters
? inflectional forms (depends on affix)

All in all, if you do the math, there are 1,750 “possible” syllables, or 1,750 rules that can be created to simulate reduplication! Imagine multiplying that figure with the various inflectional verb forms and that figure can double to 3,500. And, that would be one class! It’s because of this number, I’ve devised automation to assist in creating affix classes.

Another approach is to create another entry in the dictionary with the reduplicated part of the word.

Example:
1) saka
2) saksaka
3) sasaka
4) saka-saka
5) saksaka-saka
6) sasaka-saka

Number one would be the basic form, so any affixes Number two can be used in certain verb forms or it can be used as the distributive plural. Number three can be used for certain verb forms that require only CV reduplication, for example. And, number four is a lexicalized entry that means “to go barefoot”. The other forms can then be used for forms based on “saka-saka”.

What is nice about this approach is that the affix file no longer has to “guess” reduplicated syllables or mutations that may occur because of phonological processes. The con is that the necessary stems need to be created and the appropriate affix flags have to be associated with the other forms which can tax someone who might be adding entries to the dictionary file.

Circumfixes in Hunspell

Circumfixes are a pair of affixes, usually a prefix and a suffix and in some instances in Iloko, an infix and suffix, that must co-occur. Hunspell has the capability of recognizing circumfixes. Simply assign a special flag, and when specifying rules, assign the circumfix flag to the rules of the prefix and assign both the flag of the prefix and the circumfix flag to the rules for the suffix. Simple, huh? Let’s take a look at an example: the location circumfix pag><an.

[*.aff file]
; Circumfix flag. This flag will be used to mark affix as members of a circumfix
CIRCUMFIX X

PFX P   Y    1
PFX P   0    pag/X .

SFX S   Y     1
SFX S   0     an/PX .

[*.dic file]
1
adal/S

“X” is used to designate circumfix pairs throughout the *.aff file. The prefix, pag, is assigned the flag “P” and its single rule has a “continuation” flag, the flag after the “/” following the form of the prefix. The flag of suffix of the pair is “S”. Its only rule is similarly mark, but it has the flag of the prefix. In the dictionary, only the suffix flag is used with the root adal “to learn”.

If we were to try this out on some “words”, we would see result similar to the following when using the specifications above.

pagadal [false]
adalan [false]
pagadalan [true]

Just using either the prefix or suffix alone results in invalid words. The only “correct” form is the third.

So, the above three are the main over-arching considerations that encountered while creating a Hunspell dictionary. And, as I’ve moved along and stepped back only to move forward again, I find further details that make the task challenging.

How to Simulate Infixation in Hunspell

Infixation is where the affix is “inserted” into the stem, usually it is between the first consonant (if there is one) and the vowel of the first syllable. In Iloko and other Philippine languages this type of affix that is very productive and occurs in the many paradigms of many of the lexical categories.

The only affix types that Hunspell recognizes, however, are “prefix” and “suffix”, in other words, affixing to the left and to the right of the stem. Nevertheless, rules can be written to simulate the process.

In Iloko it is rather simple: if the syllable begins with a consonant, insert the infix between it and the vowel, otherwise, treat it like a prefix.

Example
root: sarita – talk, speech
s<um>arita

root: andar – to run (of machines), to function, to operate
um- andar

The maximal syllables in Iloko is CVC, which makes infixation simple. But, with the adoption of Spanish and English loans, there are syllables that begin with two or more consonants. For example, prito ( from the past participle of Spanish freir lit “fried”) is a commonly used word in Iloko and Tagalog. Iloko’s strategy for infixation is to insert before the vowel, i.e. prinito. Initial clusters thus become another consideration.

Hunspell rules have to be written in such as way that appear as if the first consonant (if the first syllable has one) and the infix are a prefix.

PFX I  Y  25
PFX I  0  um   [aeiou]
PFX I  b  bum  b
PFX I  d  dum  d
PFX I  g  gum  g
. . .
PFX I  t  tum  t

The first rule is straight forward:

If the root begins with a vowel, treat the infix as a prefix and attach it to the left side of the root.

So, with uli “to ascend, go up” the result is umuli. But, the remaining rules show how to deal with roots and stems that begin with consonants.

The value in the third “column” are the characters to remove from the beginning of the root. In the first case “b” and “d”. We want to remove it because we will replace the initial letter with what is in the fourth column, “bum”, the initial consonant with the infix in place. The fifth column specifies the condition under which we want the rule to apply. As expected, it is “b”.

root: takder – to stand

1) akder (remove the ‘t’)
2) tum (assemble the pseudo-prefix)
3) tumakder (add to root’s left-word edge, the beginning)

With this strategy, rules for simulation the process of infixation can be written and accounted for. The number of rules needed, however, is determined by the number of possible onsets in Iloko: 14 single consonants and 10 clusters, so 24 distinct rules.

A Change in Course

Background

Previously, I had the mind of “predicting” how the first syllable of a root is reduplicated. It seemed simple enough, just figure out what can be an onset or onsets (Spanish and English loans), what the vowels are (“a”, “e”, “i”, “o” and “u”, orthographically) and what can be codas (“h” and clusters excluded). But, as I automated the process of creating the possible syllables in Iloko, I was astounded by the shear number of rules each affix class would require.

Hunspell doesn’t have the mechanism to properly analyze reduplication. So, I devised a way in which it would be able to analyze reduplicated syllables: Fuse the prefix and the reduplicated syllable into one pseudo-prefix!

Example: agbasbasa “he or she is reading/learning”

In the example above, the first syllable (“bas”) of the root basa (“to read/learn”) is reduplicated and the verb prefix “ag-“ is attached.  Likewise, other verb prefixes follow the same pattern. (Iloko and Tagalog, for that matter, are prefix heavy.) This made it necessary to create a rule that had a form of the affix and the reduplicated target syllable that matched. Hunspell would analyze the words as “agbas-“ (prefix) and “basa” (root/stem).

PFX X 0 agbas bas ag+[RED: bas]
. . .
PFX X 0 agwuw wuw ag+[RED: wuw]

Iloko syllables can be minimally V and maximally C₁C₂VC, in other words, anywhere between a vowel and a closed syllable with an onset of consonants. In the history of the language, however, CVC was the maximal syllable. It was when Spanish words enter the lexicon did C₁C₂-type syllables became common. The C₂ is commonly /l/ or /r/.

First Approach

My first though was to create an affix class of just reduplicated syllables. Any prefix could just reference this class and it would not be necessary to generate the same syllables for each and every prefix. Hunspell is capable of analyzing two prefixes or two suffixes, but not both. In addition, some affixes could only be used with a restrictive set of other affixes and circumfixes posed a problem because prefix X could only occur with suffix Y and with another set of suffixes. So, I opted to automate the process of creating rules all the “possible” syllables combined with the affix.

Writing the automation was rather straight forward: Generate rules with the prefix and V, VC, CV, CCV, CVC and CCVC syllables. After just one affix class, there were well over a thousand rules!  I scanned rule after rule and wondered if there were any roots that began with a syllable such as “yoy” or “bluw”. I haven’t performed an analysis of the structure of Iloko roots, but I doubt that any exist. The automation produced doubtful forms as a precaution, even if they eventually were not used.

Prefixes with Final Nasals

Prefixes, such as “mang-“ and “pang-“, that have final nasals, further complicating the process of predicting the form of the reduplicated syllable. Typically, the final nasal, “-ng”, of these prefixes assimilates to the point of articulation of the initial consonant of the root (if possible). Roots that start with vowels were exempt. With some roots, however, not only did the nasal assimilate but the onset would become said nasal resulting in a geminate.

pang- + dait > pan- + dait (nasal assimilation) > pannait (consonant becomes nasal).

Or, in some cases, the geminated consonant simplified.

 pang- + sao > pan- + sao > pan- +nao > panao

Assimilation affected the first syllable in non-reduplicated forms. But, when reduplicated, the reduplicated syllable was affected, while the original syllable was unaffected, e.g. “pan(n)adait” (Rubino 2000). Whether gemination or deletion of the initial consonant occurred was unpredictable, so rules for both were added, again, as a precaution since it “could” be possible and increased the number of rules.

The few issues I faced complicated the automation. In one day I spent two hours trying to debug it. Yet, it was well worth it and it took less then a minute to produce an affix file. Imagine having to write so many rules without error and by hand!

Line Count: 80,000!

As I added more affix classes, I noticed that the number of lines steadily increased. With perhaps 60 –70 of the verb affixes automated, the affix file had grown to 80,000 lines! The file itself was an astounding 7 MB with comments and 3 MB without. I compared other affix files for other languages and found that many were smaller. Hungarian, known for its agglutinative morphology, has an similar affix file with about 90,000 lines. But, with only 60 –70 of the affix classes complete, I knew that the Iloko file would reach almost 150,000 and possibly 7MB (without comments). When I tested the affix file against a few entries in the dictionary file, I noticed that there was lag. So, after more consideration, I’ve decided to take another approach.

Reasons for a Bloated Affix File

Initially my reasons for predicting the reduplicated syllable in the affix class was to reduce the number of roots that were needed and reduce the number of affix classes. Each root in the dictionary file can only take certain affixes. So, by reducing their number it was easier to assign the right affix to the proper root. But, I’ve found that the certain issues had become more and more apparent as the affix file grew.

The classes grew astoundingly in the number of rules. It became difficult to properly check them or investigate if a rule did not “behave” as expected. Reduplication was difficult to debug.

With only a few entries in the dictionary file, the analyzer took longer to parse a small set of test words. I had a nagging feeling that overall performance would be affected. If this can happen with only a handful of *.dic file entries, can you imaging with several thousand. The rules for the “doubtful” syllables might be slowing analysis down.

After comparing other affix files for other languages, 3MB did not seem acceptable.

In the end, I decided to move the reduplication into the dictionary file. The reduplicated stem reduced the complexity and number of rules in the affix file, but it shifted the “responsibility” of explicitly specifying the reduplicated stem in the dictionary thereby dividing the work.

Roots and Stems in Hunspell

As I wrote in another post, a Hunspell dictionary is the way to go in order to create a spell-check dictionary for Iloko. Not only is implementing one relatively “easy”, but there are a plethora of languages that have dictionaries available. Because the dictionaries are open, I can gain insight about how they created their rules and apply the same techniques to Iloko.

According to the Hunspell manual for creating affix files and dictionary files, the first line of a dictionary file is an approximate number of entries and the rest of the lines are entries of stems and/or roots followed by the flags of the affix classes that are applicable. Again, the name of each file is the code for the target language, for example, “ilo.aff” and “ilo.dic” for Iloko. More information about the affix file (*.aff) can be found in this entry. But, for now we will focus on the dictionary (*.dic) file and some of the issues and considerations in creating one.

Format

The format of the entries in the *.dic file is quite simple: entries and their attributes are written on one line.

Example:

7
adda/ABC
ama/XYZ
ina/XYZ
anak/XYZ
puso/XYZ
magna/AGH
saan/KLM

In the example above, there are seven entries and each entry rests on a single line. The valid affix classes that apply to the entry follow the form after a slash (“/”). By default each affix class flag is only one character long as in the example, e.g. “A”, “B” and “C” for the first entry. Two-character or numbers can be used as affix class flags. Their use is signaled in the *.aff file.

Although I have not reached the maximum number of single-character flags, I can imagine that the number of Iloko affixes, especially prefixes and reduplication (I will explain later), can reach that maximum. As a result in embarking on creating a spelling dictionary, I enabled two-character flags.

Issues to Consider

As entries are added to the *.dic file, there are a few issues to consider while they are added. The first two have parallels in English, but the last one is specific to Iloko and possibly to other Philippine-type language.

Categorization

In English each word belongs to one, two or more parts of speech or lexical categories, such as “nouns”, “verbs” and “prepositions”. Iloko roots and stem can be categorized in the same way, but they are more fluid. The root tennis is a noun or can be used as an adjective, e.g. tennis shoes. However, unlike most nouns it cannot take the “-(e)s” plural *tennises, because in practice there is only one sport called “tennis”. Iloko has borrowed the word as tenis, and it can be classed as a noun as well, but it can be verbalized with the prefix ag-, e.g. agtenis “to play tennis”, an insight into the versatility of Iloko.

There are many such roots in Iloko which are nouns that can become verbs through affixation. Even words that would normally not have an “affix” may take them, e.g. wen “yes” versus wensa “maybe yes”. Technically “-sa” is an enclitic. Hunspell treats anything written after the stem or root as a suffix.

Great care must be taken to assign the right affix class to a root because its semantics must be considered. Just because one verbal affix can be used with one nominal root, does not mean that it will work with all.

differing stems

In English, the past tense for sing changes to sang in the past because of ancient Germanic ablaut or apophony. Ablaut can also be used to change the lexical category of the word, such as abode (noun) and abide (verb). Luckily for English speakers, sang does not have any further terminations, and the pair abode/abide are members of differing categories.

Iloko has roots that change as well. In Iloko, however, syncope, loss of a unit of sound, is the most common because of shifts in stress after affixation. In a few cases, there are two root forms within the same paradigm! For example, in pa-dakkel “to make big, enlarge” the root, dakkél, changes to dakl- because suffixation.

pa-dakl-en (neutral)
p<in>a-dakkel (perfective)

The reverse of syncope, epenthesis, or the addition of vowels or consonants for euphony, is very rare. When the prefix, ipa-, is affixed to serrek “entrance, work”, the result is ipastrek “to have, allow to enter” where a “t” is inserted; ipaserrek, however, is a permissible form.

Different stems pose a problem. They can be listed along with the original root in the *.dic file, but each must be assigned the correct affixes. And, because sometimes the differing stems can occur in the same paradigm, the affix class must be split into sub-classes. Another approach is to “predict” the syllable that will be deleted using the rules in the *.aff file.

In my approach, I opted to list the reduced stem instead of over-burdening the *.aff file. But, as a compromise affix classes that use both the full root and the reduced (or augmented, in the case of stem with an epenthetic phoneme) be added as a separate entry with the appropriate affix classes that apply.

Reduplication

Reduplication is an integral process in Iloko and the morphologies of many of the Philippine languages. Partial reduplication, usually the first syllable, is the most common means to produce a different form. In English, this only occurs in very few words and is not part very productive process, e.g. “zig-zag”, “ping-pong”, etc.

In the approach that I’ve chosen, roots that are entirely reduplicated (e.g. sakasaka “barefoot” < saka “foot”) are listed in the *.dic file mainly because they have a differing meaning than the original root and that they do not follow any predictable patterns. Partially reduplicated stems, on the other hand, are not listed in the *.dic file. As we’ll see in another post, I will explain why I’ve not treated partially reduplicated stems as “stems”. Instead, they are treated as part of the affix – they are predominantly prefixes.

Affixes in Hunspell

The affixes or the bound morphemes of the target language reside in the Hunspell *.aff file in collections of rules called classes. In addition, the *.aff file contains language-specific settings and how affixes and stems are combined. But, the main focus here will be the classes.

Affix Classes

Affix classes are a collection of related forms organized into rules which specify how they can combine with entries (roots or stems) found in the dictionary file (*.dic).

The first line of the class, specifies its type, its flag or unique identifier, whether it can combine with other classes and the total number of rules in the class. The next line is the first rule of the class. Each following line thereafter is a different rule and a different form of the affix and how it is applied. A good example of this is the regular English plural, “-s”. Depending on the end of the word, the form is “-es” if the word ends in “s”, “x”, or “z”. Or, the form would be “-ies” if the word ends in “-y”. Otherwise, it’s just “-s”. Each of these would have its own rule.

Rules are formatted into columns separated by white space. The first column specifies one of the two types of affixes that Hunspell recognizes, “SFX”  for “suffix” and “PFX” for “prefix”.

Column two of the rule is the flag or unique identifier. This is the what is used with entries in the dictionary file. The flag can be any arbitrary upper- or lower-case letter (Hunspell distinguishes case), punctuation mark or symbol. A setting can enable two-letter flags or numbers.

Column three contains the letters to remove before the form is added. If nothing needs to be removed, it is just “0” (zero character). If the affix is a prefix, letters at the begging of the stem or root are removed before adding the form; if it is a suffix, then letters are removed from the end.

Column four contains the form or allomorph of the affix as applied in the condition in column five. As in the English plural example this would be “-es”, “-ies” or “-s”.

Column five specifies the condition using a regular expression where the form can be applied. Again, using the aforementioned example, “s”, “x” or “z” would be the conditions where it should not apply can also be supplied here.

Additional information can follow the fifth column in an optional sixth column, but it is only useful for debugging or adding comments. (Not shown in the example above)

In the example rule, the class (“S”) is specified by the first line. It is a very simplified rule that applies the regular plural in English. The first rule deals with roots that end in “-y”; it excludes “vowel-y” combinations. The “-y” in the third column, specifies that “y” will be removed form the end of the stem before the form is added. The second rule says, “if the end of the stem ends in a vowel and “-y”, just add “-s”. Notice that no letters are removed (the “0”) as in the rest of the rules unlike the first rule. The third rule shows how to deal with roots or stems that end in “-s”, “-x” or “-z”. Add “-es”. And, the fourth shows the default case. In others words, if the stem does not end in the groups of letters in the square brackets. The caret (“^”) in cases where there are a list of letters means “NOT”.

[*.dic file]
1
pot/S
ax/S
party/S 

The *.dic file stub above just shows how the affix is applied to a root or stem. According to the affix class, pots is valid, but *potes or *poties are invalid; axes is valid, but not *axs nor *axies; parties is valid, but not *partys nor *partyes.

In the Hunspell dictionaries for English -- there were several for different areas and fields -- there were under 20 affix classes. For languages, such as Spanish, there are a few more classes and a long list of rules. As for Hungarian, there were far more classes and hundreds of rules for some of the classes… Yes, hundreds! Hungarian, by the way, is the reason why this engine is called “Hunspell” because it was a fork for a previous engine to better handle Hungarian which is known for its extensive agglutinating morphology.

As for my experimentations for Iloko, however, the number of affix classes has numbered into the hundreds depending on the approach taken. In one iteration, the *.aff file reached 20+ MB. I have been experimenting and have drastically reduced the file size to under four MB with the latest iteration.

[Update: I have since changed my initial approach to keep the complexity of the affix classes and the rules down. You can read more here.]

[Update: I have further changed my approach and have reduced the “bloat”.]

Spell Checker for Iloko

Iloko has made its presence on the Internet in the form of blogs (mannurat.com), web sites (iluko.com), online dictionaries and Facebook (Ilocano.org). But, the one space in this digital world that I have seen very little of it is in software.

I’ve posted about Ultradefrag in the past and it is the only application that has a localized UI (User Interface) available in Iloko. So, there is some inroads and an example for others to follow. In addition to Iloko, the application also has a Waray-Waray option. I’ve written about helping in localizing Mozilla Firefox into Iloko, but for the time being that is on hold.

Recently, I was using Facebook in Google Chrome typing my comment in Iloko. If you take a look at the screen capture, every word in my comment is underlined in red! Why? Chrome does not recognize the language and in the Settings Iloko cannot be selected. The only word recognized is “Iloko” which I added to the custom internal dictionary. Lo and behold! Filipino (A.K.A. “Tagalog”) is available, but not for spell checking. I checked to see if there was an Iloko extension, but none is available. I investigated further. I found out that the spell check used in Chrome is Hunspell. Sadly, a dictionary for Iloko is not available. So, the “red squigglies” will continue under words as I type. This irritation (and I imagine that it irks other Iloko speakers) prompted to me to investigate how to create a spelling dictionary for Iloko and Hunspell.

Why Hunspell?

Hunspell is free and open-source software. It is not a stand-alone program but a set of libraries that can be incorporated into applications. Among them are:

• OpenOffice.org – Free and open-source “office” suite. Similar to Microsoft Office. A Tagalog spell-checker extension can be found on their site.
• LibreOffice – An offshoot of OpenOffice.org, but more “cutting edge” so they are able to share dictionaries.
• Google Chrome – A popular web browser.
• Mozilla Firefox – Another popular web browser.
• Mac OS X – The Mac Operating System.
• SDL Trados – Software to help localize and translated software.

Creating a dictionary is relative “easy”. The “dictionary” actually is composed of two files, an affix file (*.aff) that contains the affixes, and a dictionary file (*.dic) that contains a list of roots and stems. Each entry in the dictionary file references affix classes or “rules” in the *.aff file. In other words, Hunspell will “figure out” all the possible “words”. Words that it cannot determine are “incorrect”, so it is crucial to get the rules right. Each file is named according to the target language code, e.g. “ilo.aff” and “ilo.dic” for Iloko.

With the ease of creating the necessary files and the the wide-spread use of Hunspell, it’s quite possible to say that after creating an Iloko dictionary, the dictionary can be used with many popular applications.

One thing to note is that Hunspell just checks spelling. It does not check syntax. So, I can type a string of words that have no association with one another and only their spellings will be checked.

Next, I’ll talk about each of the files, the *.aff file and the *.dic file, and some of the issues I’ve encountered while attempting to create a spelling dictionary.

Technocrati

XPMV9CYTVFU5 

The "Dialect" Hurdle

In recent years, I've seen changes in the attitude of Iloko speakers, particularly among the younger speakers and the attitudes toward the regional languages are changing. Just recently, the Philippine department of education institute Mother-tongue-based multilingual education, MTB-MLE. (I think that there is some redundancy in the name of the program.) In short, when children start school they are taught in the language of the region (NOTE: language). Only later in their scholastic careers are they taught in Tagalog and/or English.

Although, the early Spanish missionaries recognized Iloko as a language, it has been dubbed a dialect. Since when? I don't know. From some of the responses that I've received when pointing out the fact that Iloko is a distinct language, Tagalog is seen as the language of which Iloko is a dialect or regional variation. They see Tagalog as the language because it is the basis of Filipino, the national language. I would conjecture that because they are not national and official, the other languages are dialects, therefore not as important. So, goes the logic.

I ran into opposition to the fact that Iloko was a language in the Facebook group "NATIVES OF LA UNION". I must say that to find such a mindset in a group allegedly composed of people born in the Ilokandia (ethnically Ilokano provinces) is dismaying. In fact, San Fernando, La Union is the regional capital.

In a back and fourth with two of the members, I finally proved my point: Iloko is a language.

From the beginning comment, it is obvious that the idea that Iloko is not a distinct, separate and mutually unintelligible language from Tagalog is expressed by two of the members. And, one of them uses her "authenticity" as proof otherwise and that "...Ilocano is a dialect, Philippines has only language which is Tagalog. And Iloko is a place derived from Ilocano region! I should know Ilocano ako dear! (I am Ilocano, dear!)"... To which I just have to add a big-ole [SIC] to. 

My response, "You are all wrong."

Later on in the conversation, I decided to use just Iloko because the only responses from Sikan were in Tagalog and English. I was about to ask which languages he was fluent in. Instead, I decided to empirically test my hunch that he was not a fluent Iloko speaker.

My hunch was correct! After responding in Iloko, he replied with "I do no understanding what you saying Joseph Maza. [sic]" and proved my point. Iloko is not a dialect of Tagalog. If Iloko were a dialect of Tagalog, he could have comprehended a good portion of what I wrote. I can understand British or Australian English regardless of the fact that I see "cheque", "tyre" or "gaol (jail)". Portuguese speakers on either side of the Atlantic have about the same amount of comprehension. I take it that he understood the Tagalog after the English part of my penultimate post.

Because he could NOT understand, it made those two challenge their notions of what Iloko is and is not: 

1. Iloko is a language.
2. It is not a dialect of Tagalog.
3. It will always be that way.

Numbers: Singular VS. Plural

Grammatical number is a category that distinguishes a count of the noun. English has two categories: Singular (only one) and Plural (not one). Other languages such as Iloko have an additional category, Dual (just two or a pair), but it only occurs in the first person dual pronoun, i.e. "we two".

In software, texts in the original English use the plural forms in many instances.

Iloko nouns can be inflected for the plural number in a number of ways.

• The first is using the plural form of the noun marker, e.g. dagiti, kadagiti, and the demonstratives, e.g. dagitoy, dagidiay, etc.
• The second method is to reduplicate (CVC) the first syllable of the root, e.g. ramit, ramramit.
• The third method is specific to nouns for people and doesn't have a pattern. I will leave this one out for the time being.

Sometimes, the first and the second or third methods co-occur (e.g. dagiti ramramit). But, when localizing into Iloko several things should be considered when applying the plural and matching the English text.

Space
Space is a main consideration. Text might be truncated because no enough space was anticipated for anything longer. Where space is limited, do not pluralize the Iloko noun. These situations would be menus or status bar texts. When in doubt, check it in the actual application. It may be necessary to use the pluralized form for clarity. Using the plural marker resembles Tagalog localization and takes up space, e.g. "Mga File", "Mga Details", and it does not really add to the intelligibility of the text. In fact, it looks like a calque or a kludge to shoehorn an English style upon a different language.

If space is not an issue and full sentences and phrases are present such as dialog boxes or documentation, use the plural noun marker for general pluralization. Only use the morphological plural if the sense of the sentence or phrase lends itself to the idea of distribution, i.e. "each file".