Thank you for sharing the results of your experiment with the German Hunspell file with us.
Before learning about your experiment I did a similar one with the English one. My results were the opposite of yours.
Here are the details:
Wikipedia gave me "doghouse" as an example of a composite word. Then I tried to look up each of the 3 words,
dog, house and doughouse in my Firefox en-US.dic. To my great surprise I did find all 3 words.
In other words in the English dictionary Hunspell does not use the fact doghouse is a composite word.
Now I would like to report on a similar experiment.
I wanted to find out how Hunspell treats declined words. So I was searching for the word "houses" in en-US.dic.
I did not find it. I took this to mean that the word houses is there in a coded form. In fact I noticed that it is "tagged".
Then I did the same experiment with the file English.vdf. There I did find the word "houses".
I also would like to report to Scott that I did not find the word Peter. I only found peter.
I just noticed that I could say that a thought experiment of mine with the English Hunspell CONFIRMED
Pauli's experiment with the German Hunspell file:
Here it is: My thought experiment is to use Pauli's conversion macro to convert the English Hunspell file to .vdf format.
Then I get a perfectly correct .vdf file. However I loose words in the process. In particular, I loose declined words.