While syllable divisions are not as specifically important in UEB as was
the case in EBAE, syllable divisions are not disregarded in UEB The
bridging rules (10.11) provide examples of this.
However, it is certainly appropriate to say that while many of the bridging
rules *just so happen to* prohibit use of contractions or groupsigns across
syllable divisions, the rules as stated do not orient to syllable divisions
themselves. This means that we cannot *just* pay attention to syllable
divisions when forming words in UEB. Instead, we also have to pay
attention to the breaks between prefixes and roots, roots and suffixes,
compound words, diphthongs, and other things.
We know that one of the goals of UEB was to make it more possible for
computers to accurately translate print to braille and back. While I do
not have any inside information on how decisions were made as specific
rules of UEB were being created, I would guess that an apparent
'de-emphasizing' of syllable divisions in the rules of UEB is also a
concession to computer-translation of print to braille and back. This is
because, while it is possible to write software that orients to syllable
divisions, it is more straightforward to write software to pay attention to
prefixes, suffixes, root words, compound words, and the like. In fact, if
I were to guess, I would say that the existing crop of braille translation
software was originally written to pay attention to the latter things
anyway.
_don
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:01 AM <jyandt.martin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What I find interesting is the “disregard” for syllabication. Perhaps this
is a wrong term for it, but, probably, UEB has taken an extremely different
twist from what I learned from EBAE braille. Just thinking out loud.
*From:* Donald Winiecki
*Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2018 7:13 AM
*To:* duxuser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [duxuser] Re: ccdWhen Contractions Profoundly Alter Word
Pronunciation
While it is accurate to say that in UEB the initial-letter contraction for
"mother" (5,134) is not used in "chemotherapy," this is not because the
contraction bridges syllables.
Regarding initial-letter contractions, UEB 10.7.1 reads:
"Use the initial-letter contraction as a wordsign and wherever the
letters it represents occur; except for the specific provisions given
below; and unless other rules limit its use."
The first sentence of this rule indicates that we should not use
syllable-bridging as a reason to not use initial-letter contractions (if
syllable-bridging were disallowed, it would be applicable for all
initial-letter contractions and would be indicated in the rule).
The second sentence of the rule refers to a list of words in which one
does not use an initial-letter contraction. "Chemotherapy" is on that list.
The third sentence uses the mysterious and oblique phrase that we find
throughout the UEB rulebook: "...unless other rules limit its use." While
I would be near the front of the line of people asking that the rulebook
were more specific than "...unless other rules limit its use" in this case
we should apply one of the UEB Preference rules in 10.10, and in particular
10.10.9:
"Do not use a groupsign if its use would seriously distort the
pronunciation or hinder the recognition of the word."
This rule applies because in the list of examples provided immediately
after 10.10.9, the word "chemotherapy" is shown. This means that the rules
of UEB explicitly disallows the initial-letter contraction "mother" in
"chemotherapy" because doing so would seriously distort the actual
pronunciation and recognition of the word.
If you have gotten this far, I think I should apologize for 'geeking-out'
on the Rules of UEB. Perhaps we should just say it is my own not-so-private
obsession...
_don
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:36 AM Angel238 <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I would think not. As the contraction straddles the division between
syllables.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Catherine Thomas" <braille@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <duxuser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:12 PM
Subject: [duxuser] ccdWhen Contractions Profoundly Alter Word
Pronunciation
in
Is the contraction fo"mother" (dot 5, m) actually supposed to be used
the word chemotherapy? dIf so, how can that possibly be justified? Thechange
other question is, if a transcriber encounters a contraction-laden word
that they themselves cannot read or recognize easily, is it okay to
it> Please advise.
Catherine
------------------------------------------------------
-Catherine Thomas
braille@xxxxxxxxx /
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* * *
* This message is via list duxuser at freelists.org.
* To unsubscribe, send a blank message with
* unsubscribe
* as the subject to duxuser-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx . You may also
* subscribe, unsubscribe, and set vacation mode and other subscription
* options by visiting www.freelists.org . The list archive
* is also located there.
* Duxbury Systems' web site is www.duxburysystems.com
* * *
* * *
* This message is via list duxuser at freelists.org.
* To unsubscribe, send a blank message with
* unsubscribe
* as the subject to duxuser-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx . You may also
* subscribe, unsubscribe, and set vacation mode and other subscription
* options by visiting www.freelists.org . The list archive
* is also located there.
* Duxbury Systems' web site is www.duxburysystems.com
* * *
