So true. As many irregularities as the English language contains, the
individual user should be free to do the final tweaking.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Toews" <DogRiver@xxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 10:42 AM
Subject: [bookport] Re: braille translation mistakes
My preference would be for synthesizers to get out of the abbreviation-expansion business altogether. Some on this list may dispute my claim, but I think I'm more able to intelligently interpret these things than a computer is.
Bruce
-- Bruce Toews E-mail and MSN/Windows Messenger: DogRiver@xxxxxxxx Web Site (including info on my weekly commentaries): http://www.ogts.net Info on the Best TV Show of All Time: http://www.cornergas.com
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Shannon A. Reece wrote:
Absolutely Sarah. I can understand Crystal's irritation with hearing DR
referred to as drive when it's obvious that DR. in the case of her book was
doctor. But with any abbreviation there is more than one meaning and even a
sighted person reading DR translates it to the appropriate meaning in her
mind. Hearing a wrong translation by the tripple talk for abbreviations
doesn't bother me at all because I do what any sighted person would do and
translate them right even if the synthesizer speaks them wrong, but
beside(s), and for the have only one meaning and should be fixed if
possible.
Shannon
From: "Sarah Cranston" <cranston.sarah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [bookport] Re: braille translation mistakes
The problem with DR is that sometimes it's Doctor, and sometimes it's Drive.
That's the main problem with Braille back-translation. That is why beside,
besides, and "for the" will be easy to fix, they don't pull double duty.
Yes, and don't forget to add Dr. to the list. I just finished reading a
book where the main character was a Dr., and, of course, was constantly read
as Drive.
Crystal
