[bookport] Re: braille translation mistakes

  • From: Bruce Toews <DogRiver@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 19:51:48 -0600 (CST)

We could go on like this for years, comparing synthesizers and what says what how. The point is that no synthesizer is ever going to get all the nuances of the English language correct, and what's the point of trying.

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, Lou Kolb wrote:

Interestingly, Eloquence handled the 2 uses of produce beautifully but not
so for read.  Lou
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Ring" <ring2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 6:44 PM
Subject: [bookport] Re: braille translation mistakes


I have a sincere question for you. How could one tell a pronunciation
dictionary how to differentiate between drive and doctor since, the
abbreviations are the same.
It seems to me  In some of the more advanced synthesizers, there is a
thing
called sentence parsing (and I know I'm not spelling that right) which
meant
that the synthesizer would base certain pronunciation decisions on the
parts 
of sentences.
 The example used was, "Dr. Jones lives on St. John St.".
If a synthesizer cannot make such complex decisions, a pronunciation
dictionary will not solve the drive doctor problem.  I'm all in favor of a
pronunciation dictionary, I'm only pointing out that some things are just
about impossible to correct in that way.  Here's another one. "In Iowa, we
produce lots of produce."
How about read and read?
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Bennett" <david382@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 12:16 PM
Subject: [bookport] Re: braille translation mistakes


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















Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. bookport
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2005