Print

Print


And why would one do all this?  And if we are going to sustain the word
"outrageous" for the outrageous notion that spelling and grammar (though
they ARE used for class purposes) are defined exclusively as class
categories (which they are simply not), what could more totally construct
class access to language and be more outrageous than needing the
mechanical devices and knowledge to do so pointless a task as
reconstruct all words in the language in phonemes to be rearranged for
every individually arbitrary spelling instead of a prior agreed-on spelling we
call all learn?  This whole discussion is based--if I understand it and I am
not at all sure I could--on the totally false idea that language "rules" have
no function or purpose other than to play elitist games.
Nancy


Date sent:              Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:19:09 -0400
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Brian Vanderford <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: Finnegans spelling (off topic)
To:                     [log in to unmask]

Michelle Hadden wrote:

> really?  how would you propose setting up computerised
> search engines (I'm not trying to be a smart ass-I find
>

I'm not Peter, but I'll answer anyway. :)
It wouldn't be difficult, though it would require a few more CPU cycles
for the search engine.  Keep a database of words broken into phonetic
sounds. Break the terms in the search string into phonetic sounds and
closely as possible, and then compare the result with the database to get
it exact.  If more than one word in the database is pronounced the same,
or almost the same (10%, maybe) include them all.  If a word isn't in the
database, assume it should be spelled as typed and only as typed.
Names
and such would fall into that category.

--
(b)
"noise swallows signal in fumbled fellatio"
--Neil Gaiman, Cold Colors
www.toysastallasmen.com