The current guidelines for Lemmas say very little about what the canonical form of a word should be.
In the UD_English corpus, there are some clear typos, e.g.:
- Be warned - they 'll ltake you for everything they can .
- This is one of the best farms I have ever been too .
The first is an example of a typo resulting in a non-word; the second is the spelling of a different word (with a different POS). The syntactic annotations are correct, but it would be helpful to be able to find these as examples of take and to, respectively. And for downstream semantic annotation (e.g. word senses) there needs to be a way to map to the correct dictionary form.
In the absence of a more elaborate policy for misspellings (#330), should we at least correct the spelling in the lemma?
The current guidelines for Lemmas say very little about what the canonical form of a word should be.
In the UD_English corpus, there are some clear typos, e.g.:
The first is an example of a typo resulting in a non-word; the second is the spelling of a different word (with a different POS). The syntactic annotations are correct, but it would be helpful to be able to find these as examples of take and to, respectively. And for downstream semantic annotation (e.g. word senses) there needs to be a way to map to the correct dictionary form.
In the absence of a more elaborate policy for misspellings (#330), should we at least correct the spelling in the lemma?