A while ago, there was a discussion of creating a morphophonic system for use in wikipedia and wiktionary. I accidentally responded to the letters around a month late because I was at summer camp for the past 3 weeks and was in the middle of my post-summercamp bike trip. On the bike trip (and previously at summer camp), I worked on a morphophonic system in my head that is now almost fully functional, using only lowercased roman alphabet letters and the characters - ' ". I think that such a system would be beneficial to Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Here are some words transliterated into my system, which I'd like to call the Wikipedia Morphophonic Pronounciation (WPMP):
wikipedia -> w-ek-ep-ed-e"u wiktionary -> wi-ikshun-ar-e Daniel Ehrenberg -> Dany-l E'rxnb-rg unintuitive -> xnint'y-u"itiv
You can't really glean much of how the system works from those samples, though. -LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
-LittleDan wrote:
wikipedia -> w-ek-ep-ed-e"u wiktionary -> wi-ikshun-ar-e Daniel Ehrenberg -> Dany-l E'rxnb-rg
unintuitive -> xnint'y-u"itiv
You can't really glean much of how the system works from those samples, though. I like the simpler is best approach, Daniel -- but take issue with your choice of using strictly English vowel voicings. (E, and :"U" for what would be better as an "a" (far) -- like its written now, incidentally! :)
Like I talked about before -- you have to consider the vowels used per language as they vary over different languages, and rate these based on population. In this internationalist sense the sharp "A" sound (cat, bat ) must be **secondary** to the more *widely* understood *softer* "A" sound (bar, car). By widely understood -- take a look at Espertanto -- the phonetics of that language are based on the more common soft vowel sounds -- just as in Spanish. The "o"s dont morph into (ah)'s, the "e"'s dont morph into (ii)'s, etc.
Since many languages (inglesh) will allow for flexible sounds, from flat (resembling a different vowel) to soft (moderate) to sharp (extreme), etc -- the idea of a **standard phonetic scheme** is basically premised on *removing that *flexibility so that vowels then become static. This is the counterintuitive part -- most of us think of vowels as flexible, and which way they flex hints at our language origin/bias. How can you tell a Hindi/Arabic/Chinese/German/Spanish accent? (when speaking english) --by their vowel bias. A system, if its going to be usable has to map its vowels according to language use statistics.
For example: I see your using the "E" as in a "me" sound, as opposed to a "ben" sound -- for a "me" sound this should be a "mi" --
Example 2:Just as say, Arabic, defaults to an A .... (an Arabic A is often halfway tween an A("cat") and an E("ben") (alef,ba,ta,tha, jiim,h!a, kha, daal,thaal,zai, siin,shiin, saad, daad, taa, vaa, ayn, thayn, fe, q'af, kef, lam, mim, nuun, he, waw, yah
So too does English (\inglesh) defaults to an EE (the letters (ei)(bi)(ci)(di)(ii)(ef)(gi)(eich)(ai)(jei)(kei)(el)(em)(en) (oh)(pi)(kiu)(ar)(es)(ti)(iu)(vi)W(eks)(wai)(zi)
If English was an abjad -- most of its words would naturally default to an /i/ sound ("ee"). These languages have a marked bias toward their respective sounds --and as such are unusable in the internationalist task of creating a phonetic scheme.
Sincerely, -S-
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
On the bike trip (and previously at summer camp), I worked on a morphophonic system in my head that is now almost fully functional, using only lowercased roman alphabet letters and the characters - ' ". I think that such a system would be beneficial to Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Here are some words transliterated into my system, which I'd like to call the Wikipedia Morphophonic Pronounciation (WPMP):
wikipedia -> w-ek-ep-ed-e"u wiktionary -> wi-ikshun-ar-e Daniel Ehrenberg -> Dany-l E'rxnb-rg unintuitive -> xnint'y-u"itiv
Everyone tries to invent their own phonetic system when they're in their teens. I did. But reinventing the wheel is generally a bad idea. if every dictionary & encyclopedia has its own system, then it is not transferable, and the reader has to relearn for each book they open. Let's stick to something that is universal: IPA / SAMPA.
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
Everyone tries to invent their own phonetic system when they're in their teens. I did. But reinventing the wheel is generally a bad idea. if every dictionary & encyclopedia has its own system, then it is not transferable, and the reader has to relearn for each book they open. Let's stick to something that is universal: IPA / SAMPA.
But you don't understand. IPA and SAMPA only work with one accent, whereas my (and possibly your) system works with multiple accents. Maybe I didn't explain this. -LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--- steve vertigo utilitymuffinresearch@yahoo.com wrote:
-LittleDan wrote:
wikipedia -> w-ek-ep-ed-e"u wiktionary -> wi-ikshun-ar-e Daniel Ehrenberg -> Dany-l E'rxnb-rg
unintuitive -> xnint'y-u"itiv
You can't really glean much of how the system works from those samples, though. I like the simpler is best approach, Daniel -- but take issue with your choice of using strictly English vowel voicings. (E, and :"U" for what would be better as an "a" (far) -- like its written now, incidentally! :)
Like I talked about before -- you have to consider the vowels used per language as they vary over different languages, and rate these based on population. In this internationalist sense the sharp "A" sound (cat, bat ) must be **secondary** to the more *widely* understood *softer* "A" sound (bar, car). By widely understood -- take a look at Espertanto -- the phonetics of that language are based on the more common soft vowel sounds -- just as in Spanish. The "o"s dont morph into (ah)'s, the "e"'s dont morph into (ii)'s, etc.
Since many languages (inglesh) will allow for flexible sounds, from flat (resembling a different vowel) to soft (moderate) to sharp (extreme), etc -- the idea of a **standard phonetic scheme** is basically premised on *removing that *flexibility so that vowels then become static. This is the counterintuitive part -- most of us think of vowels as flexible, and which way they flex hints at our language origin/bias.
My system accounts for that.
How can you tell a Hindi/Arabic/Chinese/German/Spanish accent? (when speaking english) --by their vowel bias. A system, if its going to be usable has to map its vowels according to language use statistics.
For example: I see your using the "E" as in a "me" sound, as opposed to a "ben" sound -- for a "me" sound this should be a "mi" --
Example 2:Just as say, Arabic, defaults to an A .... (an Arabic A is often halfway tween an A("cat") and an E("ben") (alef,ba,ta,tha, jiim,h!a, kha, daal,thaal,zai, siin,shiin, saad, daad, taa, vaa, ayn, thayn, fe, q'af, kef, lam, mim, nuun, he, waw, yah
So too does English (\inglesh) defaults to an EE (the letters
(ei)(bi)(ci)(di)(ii)(ef)(gi)(eich)(ai)(jei)(kei)(el)(em)(en)
(oh)(pi)(kiu)(ar)(es)(ti)(iu)(vi)W(eks)(wai)(zi)
If English was an abjad -- most of its words would naturally default to an /i/ sound ("ee"). These languages have a marked bias toward their respective sounds --and as such are unusable in the internationalist task of creating a phonetic scheme.
Sincerely, -S-
This system is context-sensitive based on the non-letter character(s) preceding it and, in some cases, letter combinations like t'y make a /tS/ (although rarely it makes a /tj/) sound in british english (but a /t/ sound in american english). There also aren't any two sounds to be represented by the same letter, even if they only differ slightly (as long as the accent stays the same). Vowels (or consonants) never default to a different sound. -LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com