You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

nydwracu comments on The rational way to name rivers - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: PhilGoetz 06 August 2014 03:41PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (42)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 August 2014 09:56:27PM *  0 points [-]

That would be difficult. Deseret script is phonetic, so you'd have to either look up the pronunciation for each word or eat the imperfection from the ~40% of words that can't be easily predicted.

Deseret script as it's supposed to be used is even harder to automate conversion into than that alone would suggest: you're supposed to write the stressed equivalent of unstressed vowels. So the words "photograph" and "photography", for example, should be ๐‘๐ฌ๐ป๐ฌ๐‘€๐‘‰๐ฐ๐‘ and ๐‘๐ฌ๐ป๐ช๐‘€๐‘‰๐ฐ๐‘๐ฎ (IPA: foสŠฬฏtoสŠฬฏgrรฆf and foสŠฬฏtษ‘grรฆfษช, my keyboard transliteration: fo;to;graf and fo;tografi). I don't think this is very common in practice, however -- which is a problem for back-converting Deseret to Latin, since the unstressed schwa can be written either ๐ฒ or ๐ฎ by people who don't distinguish them.

Also, textspeak is built into it: the name of the letter ๐’ is 'bee', so the word 'bee' can be written '๐บ'. This can even hold within a word: the Wikipedia page has an example of a coin with the text "๐๐„๐ข๐†๐ค๐ ๐“๐… ๐œ ๐ข๐ƒ๐ก๐”". The first word there is 'holiness', but it's written /hoสŠฬฏlษชns/ (ho;lins), since the name of the letter ๐ is pronounced 'ess'. Usually you see this in the definite article, which is just written ๐‘„, but you could also write 'entry', 'zebra', and 'jeep' as '๐‘Œ๐ป๐‘‰๐ฎ', '๐‘†๐บ๐‘‰๐ฒ', and '๐พ๐น'. (ntrษช zbrษ™ dส’p / ntri zbru jp -- and 'entry' could also be written with a final -๐จ instead of -๐ฎ)

It would be possible to automatically convert Latin to Deseret (or Shavian) and back, but it wouldn't be easy, and it probably couldn't be done quickly enough to have a browser plugin do it.

edit: a Latin -> Deseret converter already exists, but it's crap: can't take more than a few words at a time, returns allcaps, adds semicolons for no reason after some letters, can't handle textspeak even for the definite article, and makes vowel choices that I wouldn't make. (Looks like it writes all unstressed vowels with ๐†.)

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 August 2014 10:18:48PM 0 points [-]

That would be difficult. Deseret script is phonetic, so you'd have to either look up the pronunciation for each word or eat the imperfection from the ~40% of words that can't be easily predicted.

Yes you need a phonetic dictionary. eSpeak is a project where people already dealt with the problem of predicting phonetics. You could start with the values that eSpeak produces and allow users to edit them in some sort of Wiki to improve on the eSpeak IPA values.

It would be possible to automatically convert Latin to Deseret (or Shavian) and back, but it wouldn't be easy, and it probably couldn't be done quickly enough to have a browser plugin do it.

Local database lookups are very fast I don't see how speed on a client side browser plugin would be an issue.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 August 2014 10:54:40PM 0 points [-]

Local database lookups are very fast I don't see how speed on a client side browser plugin would be an issue.

Fast enough that you can do a few hundred of them per page? (Not rhetorical; I don't know.)

Textspeak substitution wouldn't actually be a problem; I don't know why I thought otherwise. And back-conversion to Latin would just require brute-forcing words that don't show up in the dictionary.

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 August 2014 12:05:42AM 0 points [-]

Fast enough that you can do a few hundred of them per page? (Not rhetorical; I don't know.)

Yes, select queries don't take much time when you have an index. Thank Moore's law.