ergent help needed with phonetic transcriptions


 

John, you wrote, in part: "There's nothing about sight that makes you look at an 's'
with a mark under it and immediately go "ah yes, that's the 'sh' sound,
as in English 'ship"! You learn that when you learn the IPA."

Indeed, that is true.

You also wrote, "Now, maybe
it's harder because nobody bothered to name the IPA characters."

               Bingo, and the character names are just a mess.   I think that most speakers of English get that "shingle", spelled s h i n g l e, where each character has a single syllable name, much more easily than Esh, small capital I, n, lowercase script g, l

               I certainly never looked at the word shingle, phonetically transcribed, and ever thought about the characters in the way I do when reading text.  Perhaps I'm odd.  But I would no sooner condemn someone to work with phonetic transcription who's blind, and expect ease and proficiency, than I'd expect them to fly to the moon using their arms as propulsion.  And I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of sighted who never get the hang of the IPA, either.  And heaven forbid you're going to deal with phonetics across languages, some of which take forever [if ever] to retrain the ear to even hear (or the brain to process) when those are not linguistically significant sounds in your first language, then having to put those down on paper in the IPA!  Thanks, but no thanks.

               But, to each his or her own.  Some people like challenges that I'd sooner avoid.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 


enes sarıbaş
 

hi Brian,,

So what do you recommend I do? I really like the field, and my research will likely not be primarily in phonetics. I also really want to get an advanced degree in linguistics.


On 11/27/2018 8:58 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
John, you wrote, in part: "There's nothing about sight that makes you look at an 's'
with a mark under it and immediately go "ah yes, that's the 'sh' sound,
as in English 'ship"! You learn that when you learn the IPA." Indeed, that is true. You also wrote, "Now, maybe it's harder because nobody bothered to name the IPA characters."

               Bingo, and the character names are just a mess.   I think that most speakers of English get that "shingle", spelled s h i n g l e, where each character has a single syllable name, much more easily than Esh, small capital I, n, lowercase script g, l

               I certainly never looked at the word shingle, phonetically transcribed, and ever thought about the characters in the way I do when reading text.  Perhaps I'm odd.  But I would no sooner condemn someone to work with phonetic transcription who's blind, and expect ease and proficiency, than I'd expect them to fly to the moon using their arms as propulsion.  And I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of sighted who never get the hang of the IPA, either.  And heaven forbid you're going to deal with phonetics across languages, some of which take forever [if ever] to retrain the ear to even hear (or the brain to process) when those are not linguistically significant sounds in your first language, then having to put those down on paper in the IPA!  Thanks, but no thanks.

               But, to each his or her own.  Some people like challenges that I'd sooner avoid.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 



 

If you want my serious recommendation it would be to have a sit-down with your department head, and any other faculty in your program, and ask them their opinion as to a path through a linguistics degree, particularly an advanced one, without phonetic transcription being a big part of it.

I have to believe there is a path through, though I would imagine it would involve a specifically designed undergraduate path as well as a clear idea as to what your graduate focus will be and that it not involve phonetics (transcription directly, not an understanding of, which of course you'll have).

They are in a far better place to give you informed opinion, and the direct assistance with program design that you'll need, than I can.  There's nothing wrong with reasonable accommodations in academic pursuit, particularly if your desired area of specialty does not rely on an area of study that's not essential to it in any meaningful sense.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 


enes sarıbaş
 

hi brian,
I did my undergrad in language teaching, and was exempt from the transcriptions, only just pronouncing the sounds directly, which seemed fair. However, I feel this might not have been a good idea, as  I am currently doing a masters at Cambridge, and can't get much out of the phonological theory course,  as even the instructor acknowledges that some theories, such as autosegment, or geometric phonology are visual. I definitely don't want to skimp on the understanding of the phonological theories  as a potential professor,  I don't want to have defesits in my knowledge of linguistics in any field.

On 11/28/2018 1:24 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
If you want my serious recommendation it would be to have a sit-down with your department head, and any other faculty in your program, and ask them their opinion as to a path through a linguistics degree, particularly an advanced one, without phonetic transcription being a big part of it.

I have to believe there is a path through, though I would imagine it would involve a specifically designed undergraduate path as well as a clear idea as to what your graduate focus will be and that it not involve phonetics (transcription directly, not an understanding of, which of course you'll have).

They are in a far better place to give you informed opinion, and the direct assistance with program design that you'll need, than I can.  There's nothing wrong with reasonable accommodations in academic pursuit, particularly if your desired area of specialty does not rely on an area of study that's not essential to it in any meaningful sense.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 



enes sarıbaş
 

hi brian,

Also this NFB page you linked to, describes an associate professor in linguistics.

https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm13/bm1302/bm130211.htm


On 11/28/2018 1:34 AM, enes sarıbaş via Groups.Io wrote:
hi brian,
I did my undergrad in language teaching, and was exempt from the transcriptions, only just pronouncing the sounds directly, which seemed fair. However, I feel this might not have been a good idea, as  I am currently doing a masters at Cambridge, and can't get much out of the phonological theory course,  as even the instructor acknowledges that some theories, such as autosegment, or geometric phonology are visual. I definitely don't want to skimp on the understanding of the phonological theories  as a potential professor,  I don't want to have defesits in my knowledge of linguistics in any field.
On 11/28/2018 1:24 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
If you want my serious recommendation it would be to have a sit-down with your department head, and any other faculty in your program, and ask them their opinion as to a path through a linguistics degree, particularly an advanced one, without phonetic transcription being a big part of it.

I have to believe there is a path through, though I would imagine it would involve a specifically designed undergraduate path as well as a clear idea as to what your graduate focus will be and that it not involve phonetics (transcription directly, not an understanding of, which of course you'll have).

They are in a far better place to give you informed opinion, and the direct assistance with program design that you'll need, than I can.  There's nothing wrong with reasonable accommodations in academic pursuit, particularly if your desired area of specialty does not rely on an area of study that's not essential to it in any meaningful sense.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 




 

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:43 PM, enes sarıbaş wrote:
hi brian,  Also this NFB page you linked to
Just want to note that was not me, but Jonathan Cohn.  Credit where credit is due.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 


Sarah k Alawami
 

Yeah my instructor worked with me to do the IPA stuff. He made sure I would pass the class with a fair grade. So yeah talk to them and see if there is anything you can do.

On 27 Nov 2018, at 17:24, Brian Vogel wrote:

If you want my serious recommendation it would be to have a sit-down with your department head, and any other faculty in your program, and ask them their opinion as to a path through a linguistics degree, particularly an advanced one, without phonetic transcription being a big part of it.

I have to believe there is a path through, though I would imagine it would involve a specifically designed undergraduate path as well as a clear idea as to what your graduate focus will be and that it not involve phonetics (transcription directly, not an understanding of, which of course you'll have).

They are in a far better place to give you informed opinion, and the direct assistance with program design that you'll need, than I can.  There's nothing wrong with reasonable accommodations in academic pursuit, particularly if your desired area of specialty does not rely on an area of study that's not essential to it in any meaningful sense.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 


Vlad Dragomir
 

Definitely. An alternative to naming them, would be describing them. I’m inventing one right now, as an example:

“x with dot above and horizontal line below”.

 

There’s nothing more sighted about this than the usual alphabet that we all know. The only difference is that there are much more letters; therefore, we need someone patient enough to go through all of them and give them either names or unique descriptions. Our screen readers either go through those symbols by being totally silent, or they read only the base-letter; not very helpful.

 

This might be difficult to understand for someone who never encountered IPA before, but it should be much easier to implement than, for example, music notation. I would never expect a screen reader to be able to read a musical score to me, although I do admit I would be more than happy to. On the other hand, IPA represents speech, like any other world alphabet. Therefore, I still can’t see where the big problem is.

 

A very good day to you all!

 

Vlad.


John Isige
 

Oh sure! You don't read it the same way at all. I'm just saying, you
should have characters, they should have names, so you get NVDA to read
out the names, probably if you go character by character because they'd
be a mess as words I'd think, and then you go through the same hell as
the sighted, associating each character with its sound. Other than
having a map of characters to names and having them read, there's really
nothing extra a blind person has to do over a sighted person. Besides
... how else are you going to learn about open and closed vowels in
Masai, I ask you?

On 11/27/2018 14:58, Brian Vogel wrote:
John, you wrote, in part: "There's nothing about sight that makes you
look at an 's'
with a mark under it and immediately go "ah yes, that's the 'sh' sound,
as in English 'ship"! You learn that when you learn the IPA."

Indeed, that is true.

You also wrote, "Now, maybe it's harder because nobody bothered to
name the IPA characters."

               Bingo, and the character names are just a mess.   I
think that most speakers of English get that "shingle", spelled s h i
n g l e, where each character has a single syllable name, much more
easily than Esh, small capital I, n, lowercase script g, l

               I certainly never looked at the word shingle,
phonetically transcribed, and ever thought about the characters in the
way I do when reading text.  Perhaps I'm odd.  But I would no sooner
condemn someone to work with phonetic transcription who's blind, and
expect ease and proficiency, than I'd expect them to fly to the moon
using their arms as propulsion.  And I'll be the first to admit that
there are plenty of sighted who never get the hang of the IPA,
either.  And heaven forbid you're going to deal with phonetics across
languages, some of which take forever [if ever] to retrain the ear to
even hear (or the brain to process) when those are not linguistically
significant sounds in your first language, then having to put those
down on paper in the IPA! Thanks, but no thanks.

               But, to each his or her own.  Some people like
challenges that I'd sooner avoid.
--

Brian *-*Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763

*/A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the
need for illusion is deep./*

          ~ Saul Bellow, /To Jerusalem and Back/


Jonathan COHN
 

There is a blind professor of Linguistics at Rice University, in an earlier message on this thread I put a reference to a paper of his about updating the Braille codes for modern phonetic alphabit and there was also a link in that paper with information on how he extended JAWS to support IPA. Sofar as I can tell nobody who has commented on the thread since, has looked at this paper.

Certainly, it is mostly a matter of ensuring proper support of the UNICODE characters related to the IPA and ensuring that the materials you are looking at are encoded in UNICODE rather than an older style of coding. If nothing else, have you attempted to reach out to the professor at Rice?

 

Take care,

 

Jonathan Cohn

 

 

From: <nvda@nvda.groups.io> on behalf of Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
Reply-To: "nvda@nvda.groups.io" <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 8:27 PM
To: "nvda@nvda.groups.io" <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nvda] ergent help needed with phonetic transcriptions

 

If you want my serious recommendation it would be to have a sit-down with your department head, and any other faculty in your program, and ask them their opinion as to a path through a linguistics degree, particularly an advanced one, without phonetic transcription being a big part of it.

I have to believe there is a path through, though I would imagine it would involve a specifically designed undergraduate path as well as a clear idea as to what your graduate focus will be and that it not involve phonetics (transcription directly, not an understanding of, which of course you'll have).

They are in a far better place to give you informed opinion, and the direct assistance with program design that you'll need, than I can.  There's nothing wrong with reasonable accommodations in academic pursuit, particularly if your desired area of specialty does not rely on an area of study that's not essential to it in any meaningful sense.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 


 

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Cohn, Jonathan wrote:
Sofar as I can tell nobody who has commented on the thread since, has looked at this paper.
I did, when it was mentioned by someone else on the JAWS group, in a topic to which I gave the direct link.

There is a difference between possible to create a way for a screen reader to do a character by character IPA reading, and same being practical for extensive use.  Just because something can be done, and indeed it seems has been done, doesn't make it good advice to say, "Hey, this is a reasonable area to try to delve into with circumstances being what they are."

I would not discourage anyone who's blind from the study of phonetics, which is entirely possible without ever doing a single character of phonetic transcription (which is a poor substitute for actual recordings).  I would strongly discourage trying to delve into phonetic transcription, or the reading of same, due to the constraints I've mentioned previously.  Practicality does, and should, play a role.

The study of linguistics requires a knowledge of phonetics and phonetic theories.  It really doesn't require the ability to do phonetic transcription, nor even to read it well, as many ditch it after an introductory course if their chosen area really doesn't require it.

But, at this point, we've really strayed from even tangential relationship to NVDA in any meaningful sense.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 


enes sarıbaş
 

hi,

I have opted not to write the essay in phonology  for my studies. After I get my current load of work off my shoulders, I will certainly reach out to him.


On 11/28/2018 3:49 PM, Cohn, Jonathan wrote:

There is a blind professor of Linguistics at Rice University, in an earlier message on this thread I put a reference to a paper of his about updating the Braille codes for modern phonetic alphabit and there was also a link in that paper with information on how he extended JAWS to support IPA. Sofar as I can tell nobody who has commented on the thread since, has looked at this paper.

Certainly, it is mostly a matter of ensuring proper support of the UNICODE characters related to the IPA and ensuring that the materials you are looking at are encoded in UNICODE rather than an older style of coding. If nothing else, have you attempted to reach out to the professor at Rice?

 

Take care,

 

Jonathan Cohn

 

 

From: <nvda@nvda.groups.io> on behalf of Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
Reply-To: "nvda@nvda.groups.io" <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 8:27 PM
To: "nvda@nvda.groups.io" <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nvda] ergent help needed with phonetic transcriptions

 

If you want my serious recommendation it would be to have a sit-down with your department head, and any other faculty in your program, and ask them their opinion as to a path through a linguistics degree, particularly an advanced one, without phonetic transcription being a big part of it.

I have to believe there is a path through, though I would imagine it would involve a specifically designed undergraduate path as well as a clear idea as to what your graduate focus will be and that it not involve phonetics (transcription directly, not an understanding of, which of course you'll have).

They are in a far better place to give you informed opinion, and the direct assistance with program design that you'll need, than I can.  There's nothing wrong with reasonable accommodations in academic pursuit, particularly if your desired area of specialty does not rely on an area of study that's not essential to it in any meaningful sense.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 



enes sarıbaş
 

so brian, I guess I misunderstood you then. I thought you were atempting to discourage me from studieing phonetics, or linguistics entirely because of the element of transcription.


On 11/28/2018 4:15 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Cohn, Jonathan wrote:
Sofar as I can tell nobody who has commented on the thread since, has looked at this paper.
I did, when it was mentioned by someone else on the JAWS group, in a topic to which I gave the direct link.

There is a difference between possible to create a way for a screen reader to do a character by character IPA reading, and same being practical for extensive use.  Just because something can be done, and indeed it seems has been done, doesn't make it good advice to say, "Hey, this is a reasonable area to try to delve into with circumstances being what they are."

I would not discourage anyone who's blind from the study of phonetics, which is entirely possible without ever doing a single character of phonetic transcription (which is a poor substitute for actual recordings).  I would strongly discourage trying to delve into phonetic transcription, or the reading of same, due to the constraints I've mentioned previously.  Practicality does, and should, play a role.

The study of linguistics requires a knowledge of phonetics and phonetic theories.  It really doesn't require the ability to do phonetic transcription, nor even to read it well, as many ditch it after an introductory course if their chosen area really doesn't require it.

But, at this point, we've really strayed from even tangential relationship to NVDA in any meaningful sense.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back