08-03-2022, 01:48 PM
The hyphotesis under they work are quite restrictive.
The main weakiness of this study is the method and the data used. They work under the hypothesis that the number of characters is that of EVA. If they are not, if one carachter is splitted in several ones (as a consecuence of different caligraphy for the same character) or several characters are united in a single one the results of the analisys will be wrong. The wider the differences, the more probable the divergence.
They havent taken in consideration the posibility of null characters, or letters or words represented in diffentent ways, they assume in fact that there arent any of them.
They compare what they call segments with word probability to find similar patters with another similar lenguages. I dont understand how they do it, are they taking the segments as words? As syllabes? As chains of letters?
The main weakiness of this study is the method and the data used. They work under the hypothesis that the number of characters is that of EVA. If they are not, if one carachter is splitted in several ones (as a consecuence of different caligraphy for the same character) or several characters are united in a single one the results of the analisys will be wrong. The wider the differences, the more probable the divergence.
They havent taken in consideration the posibility of null characters, or letters or words represented in diffentent ways, they assume in fact that there arent any of them.
They compare what they call segments with word probability to find similar patters with another similar lenguages. I dont understand how they do it, are they taking the segments as words? As syllabes? As chains of letters?