You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 6, 2021. It is now read-only.
I should have noted explicitly that this is a known bug, due to what we have in the source and comparison files (whenever CW has two lexical entries for the same string/lemma), and can best be fixed either manually in the files, or by creating an aggregate source file that will resolve mapping ambiguities.
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
mîtas is both an NDA-1 and an NDI-1 noun. However, only the entry of the NDA exists.
http://altlab.ualberta.ca/itwewina/crk/eng/?lookup=m%C3%AEtas
Most likely, this a systematic issue and more words than just mîtas are affected.
This is causing the test case for issue #55 to fail, as it depends on both definitions to exist.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: