It's not up to JAWS, it's up to the synthesizer.
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 Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Julia Cosgrove (Mrs.) wrote:
Well, Jaws is supposed to be able to get words right but it does not especially with: lives and lives!
Julia.
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
