search

languagetool-org / languagetool

Style and Grammar Checker for 25+ Languages
https://languagetool.org
GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1
12.42k stars 1.39k forks source link

[fr] Bad suggestion for verb prévoir #4328

Closed bperel closed 3 years ago

bperel commented 3 years ago

Il >prévu< d’équiper en 2023 leurs pilotes d’un viseur de casque et de les doter d’un nouveau système de communication par satellite

LanguageTool suggests: prévirent prévis prévisse prévissent prévisses

whereas "prévit" should be suggested. not sure if similar verbs have the same behavior.

jaumeortola commented 3 years ago

Thank you. This problem is general in the rule group ACCORD_R_PERS_VERBE. The rules are not prepared to generate a personal form (e.g. 3rd person singular) from a non-personal form (infinitive, participle...).

We will need to duplicate the rules to generate the correct suggestions. Number and person come from the pronoun. But the tense (present, past...) should be guessed or invented: il prevoit, il prévit, il a prévu...

bperel commented 3 years ago

Thanks for your answer. In the case that I wrote though, it doesn't look like the gender was implied either, otherwise it would have suggested "prévoit" which is the present form. Or do I misunderstand what you say?

udomai commented 3 years ago

The FindSuggestionsFilter would make the right suggestions with V.*3 s, right? This would require a rule for each person-number combination.

jaumeortola commented 3 years ago

Gender (masculine/feminine) is not used in this rule. It is person (1, 2, 3) and number (singular/plural). For example, in il veux, it converts veux (pres ind 1/2 sing) into veut (pres ind 3 sing). The verbal tense (indicatif présent) is kept.

In il vu it tries to generate "participe passé 3 sing", which doesn't make sense. In fact, all the conjugation is generated, but only five forms are shown.

The FindSuggestionsFilter would make the right suggestions with V.*3 s, right? This would require a rule for each person-number combination.

Yes. That's one way to do it.

jaumeortola commented 3 years ago

Fixed with new rules PRONSUJ_NONVERBE.