User:
ralfherzog
Date: 6/10/2008 2:18 am
Views: 916
Rating: 22
Hello Timo,
1. Thanks for your explanation concerning the word [f????lasn?]. Your explanation sounds reasonable, but I wouldn't be able to produce the same result on my own. The details are too complicated for me. I just hope that I don't produce too much mistakes when adding transcriptions to the dictionary acquisition project.
2. That would be great if you would generate this weekend the two different lexicons (PLS, and a plaintext version for
Sphinx). I will continue to submit entries. Please tell me if you find any minor or major mistakes.
3. I didn't know that "current ASR doesn't have proper phonologic modules." Or to be more precise: I haven't thought about this important question. I am planning to learn more about how Sphinx etc. work. But at the moment, it seems to be a wise decision to focus on the
dictionary acquisition project.
3.a. Thanks for the very good explanation concerning the phones [x]/[ç]. So we should distinguish these phones in the plaintext lexicon for Sphinx even though these two phones build the same phoneme in German.
3.b. OK, it seems to be a good decision to use just one generic phoneme /r/ for the plaintext lexicon. But would this be the case too, if we would target to produce not a speaker independent, but a speaker dependent lexicon? Well, in the long term, I would like to have a free speech recognition software that is speaker independent. But to achieve this goal, maybe we need in the long term speaker dependent lexicons? So it might be a truly wise decision to develop two versions of the lexicon (one version with the different Rs under the PLS, and a plaintext version with just one /r/ for Sphinx).
Yes, your explanations helped. Sometimes it seems to be useful to distinguish between phones ([
x]/[
ç]), and sometimes this is obviously not the case (/r/).
Greetings from Bonn, Ralf
