New answers tagged

0

As others have already noted, building a system for this that does not make assumptions about the language in question is really hard. Li et al. (2020) present a system which I think is state of the art or near it, and on the two languages that were not seen in its training data (Inuktitut and Tusom), their best phone error rates are 73.1% and 64.2% ...


1

For your first two sentences, my intuition is that the attachment of the PP subtly alters the semantics with the result that in some circumstances only one attachment is appropriate. We start with your two sentences: Twain [bought [a book [for Howells]]]. Twain [bought [a book] [for Howells]]. First imagine that Howells has told Twain to buy a book and ...


0

i dont think it's impossible at all. im not an expert or anything(nor anything close to it :)) but this is how i'd do it. as far as i know there are three factors included when a consonant is produced 1)matter of articulation 2)place of articulation and 3)voicing (im putting aside labialization, aspiration and other similar stuff rn) as for the place we can ...


5

This is a difficult question to answer, because it comes down to the rules you're using. At one extreme, you can give each letter a single pronunciation regardless of environment (the letters around it), which will have utterly abysmal accuracy. At the other extreme, you can have a separate rule for every single word in the OED, which will have 100% accuracy....


0

The direction of prediction is important. The letter-to-pronunciation mapping is much more regular than the pronunciation-to-letter mapping. The spelling of [sizr╠ę] is meaning-specific (Caesar, seizer, Seazer, Seezer) and since three of the extant spellings are personal names, it's not even a question of meaning, it's about which person you're referring to. ...


Top 50 recent answers are included