Why aren't commands + D.o.P in dictionaries?
I'm just wondering why, with computer power what it is these days, why can't you look up a verb infinitive that has a DOP attached to it, or for that matter, the affirmative command with the DOP attached? Some dictionaries have some infinitives + DOP and some commands + DOP.
Since there are only a few pronouns I don't know why it would be a problem to add this to an electronic dictionary. Of course this may already exist and I just haven't found it.
For example, piénsalo is not in the dictionary but pensarlo is, leerlo is in the dictionary but not léalo. I understand that after you reach a certain level one understands the commands, imperatives and such, but getting there would be a lot easier with a 'beginners' dictionary. Is something like this too crazy?
3 Answers
qfreed wrote:
Which dictionary do you have that lists pensarlo and leerlo?
Why limit it to d.o.p.'s? Why not i.o.p.'s and reflexive/object pronoun combinations? >Forget that without context that you would never be able to know what the 3rd person >pronouns refer to, or whether the se was a third person, i.o.p. or a reflexive pronoun; >can you imagine what that would do to the size of a dictionary?
Don't forget that you would have to list both negative and positive/ singular and plural >commands with all of the pronoun combinations as they can change for >number/negative or affirmative/formal or informal.
Yes, I think something like this is too crazy.
To answer your first question, the Diccionario español Mexico Firefox add-in, version 1.1.2
First, I'm talking about doing a lookup that will give you a definition, not the entire usage possibilities. Even with today's current electronic dictionaries, all possibilities are not covered.
In regard to Object Pronouns, there just aren't that many, and you don't have to know what the object pronoun is referring to to give a definition of a word.
Example: Pensarlo. The 'smart' dictionary recognises the object pronoun 'lo', strips it off and gives the definition. That's better than a stupid message "I'm sorry, I couldn't find the word you're looking for. At least by stripping the object pronoun you get a definition. Then, after a successful dictionary, and since this word had an object pronoun attached to it, the 'smart' dictionary could give a definition using an OP. For example, the infinitive definition of pensar changes from to think to think about it. Of course it doesn't know what it is, it doesn't have to.
Same deal if the word entered is a 'reflexive object pronoun combination', the smart dictionary strips off the pronouns and at least gives you a definition instead of the previously mentioned stupid message.
If would be easy to add the formal/informal command forms and the infinitive forms with OP combinations.
I do have an idea how large the dictionary would be. What's your point? I have 4 terabytes of storage on my computer now. Current dictionaries now run from as little as 100K and less to 250K and more. To add the ability to return a definition after stripping the object pronoun would hardly affect the size of the dictionary. To add the commands and infinitives using OP would roughly double to quadruple the size (depending on how much space was given to usage examples).
I work with huge datasets in my work, so a dictionary is extremely tiny by comparison.
Which dictionary do you have that lists pensarlo and leerlo?
Why limit it to d.o.p.'s? Why not i.o.p.'s and reflexive/object pronoun combinations? Forget that without context that you would never be able to know what the 3rd person pronouns refer to, or whether the se was a third person, i.o.p. or a reflexive pronoun; can you imagine what that would do to the size of a dictionary?
Don't forget that you would have to list both negative and positive/ singular and plural commands with all of the pronoun combinations as they can change for number/negative or affirmative/formal or informal.
Yes, I think something like this is too crazy.
Jack! This is it! This is your second career: market the first dictionary that has common command forms with pronouns! Seriously, I think you are on to something....
