Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A Chrome extension that show English word pronunciations by diacritics
43 views
Skip to first unread message
Ziyuan Yao
Apr 27, 2012, 9:21:18 PM4/27/12
to
PIE Transformer automatically adds diacritics to English words on a Web page to indicate their pronunciations. This has three uses:
1. For English-as-a-second-language (ESL) people to learn correct English word pronunciations.
2. For native English-speaking children to learn how to read. (See "No Child Left Behind Act".)
3. Recreational use. Show off a sentence in the PIE form to your online friends or use it in your commercial campaigns.
Go here and see it yourself:
https://sites.google.com/site/phoneticallyintuitiveenglish/
1. For English-as-a-second-language (ESL) people to learn correct English word pronunciations.
2. For native English-speaking children to learn how to read. (See "No Child Left Behind Act".)
3. Recreational use. Show off a sentence in the PIE form to your online friends or use it in your commercial campaigns.
Go here and see it yourself:
https://sites.google.com/site/phoneticallyintuitiveenglish/
R H Draney
Apr 28, 2012, 1:31:54 AM4/28/12
to
Ziyuan Yao filted:
>
>PIE Transformer automatically adds diacritics to English words on a Web pag=
simply click on a regular unsecured link when I'm reading Usenet, but with a
secure link I have to copy the entire link, open a new browser tab, and paste
the link into it....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>PIE Transformer automatically adds diacritics to English words on a Web pag=
>e to indicate their pronunciations. This has three uses:
>
Why are so many people lately posting links with the "https://" prefix?...I can
>
simply click on a regular unsecured link when I'm reading Usenet, but with a
secure link I have to copy the entire link, open a new browser tab, and paste
the link into it....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Apr 28, 2012, 1:52:32 AM4/28/12
to
without the s (as is the case with this one).
--
athel
Stan Brown
Apr 28, 2012, 7:48:08 AM4/28/12
to
product, but I would hope it's customizable as to the form of text
that it recognizes as a link; most newsreaders are, I believe.
Otherwise I think you should report it as a bug. https-type links
have been around for a lot of years, and there's really no excuse for
a newsreader not to recognize them.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
Robert Bannister
Apr 28, 2012, 8:28:32 PM4/28/12
to
almost ubiquitous "s" stands for "secure".
--
Robert Bannister
Message has been deleted
R H Draney
Apr 29, 2012, 12:07:31 AM4/29/12
to
Lane filted:
>it's Newsguy's web-to-news interface. Like most such, it's both clunky
>and crippled.
But unlike any "real" newsreader, I could use it at the office....r
>
>Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> On 27 Apr 2012 22:31:54 -0700, R H Draney wrote:
>> >
>>> Why are so many people lately posting links with the "https://" prefix?...I
>>can
>>> simply click on a regular unsecured link when I'm reading Usenet, but with a
>>> secure link I have to copy the entire link, open a new browser tab, and paste
>> > the link into it....r
>>
>> You seem to be posting with Direct Read News. I don't know that
>> product, but I would hope it's customizable as to the form of text
>> that it recognizes as a link; most newsreaders are, I believe.
>>
>> Otherwise I think you should report it as a bug. https-type links
>> have been around for a lot of years, and there's really no excuse for
>> a newsreader not to recognize them.
>
>You're right, there isn't. And "Direct Read News" isn't a newsreader,
>Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> On 27 Apr 2012 22:31:54 -0700, R H Draney wrote:
>> >
>>> Why are so many people lately posting links with the "https://" prefix?...I
>>can
>>> simply click on a regular unsecured link when I'm reading Usenet, but with a
>>> secure link I have to copy the entire link, open a new browser tab, and paste
>> > the link into it....r
>>
>> You seem to be posting with Direct Read News. I don't know that
>> product, but I would hope it's customizable as to the form of text
>> that it recognizes as a link; most newsreaders are, I believe.
>>
>> Otherwise I think you should report it as a bug. https-type links
>> have been around for a lot of years, and there's really no excuse for
>> a newsreader not to recognize them.
>
>it's Newsguy's web-to-news interface. Like most such, it's both clunky
>and crippled.
But unlike any "real" newsreader, I could use it at the office....r
Curlytop
Apr 29, 2012, 2:16:30 PM4/29/12
to
Ziyuan Yao set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:
Don't like it. It makes English look like Vietnamese. I learned to read
English as she is writ without the help of such funny little marks. A bit
of PIE in the sky there methinks.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
continuum:
English as she is writ without the help of such funny little marks. A bit
of PIE in the sky there methinks.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Apr 30, 2012, 10:33:06 AM4/30/12
to
On 2012-04-29 20:16:30 +0200, Curlytop <pvstownse...@ntlworld.com> said:
> Ziyuan Yao set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
>
>> PIE Transformer automatically adds diacritics to English words on a Web
>> page to indicate their pronunciations. This has three uses:
>>
>> 1. For English-as-a-second-language (ESL) people to learn correct English
>> word pronunciations.
>>
>> 2. For native English-speaking children to learn how to read. (See "No
>> Child Left Behind Act".)
>>
>> 3. Recreational use. Show off a sentence in the PIE form to your online
>> friends or use it in your commercial campaigns.
>>
>> Go here and see it yourself:
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/site/phoneticallyintuitiveenglish/
>
> Don't like it. It makes English look like Vietnamese.
Yes. English spelling isn't the most rational and logical system in the
> Ziyuan Yao set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
>
>> PIE Transformer automatically adds diacritics to English words on a Web
>> page to indicate their pronunciations. This has three uses:
>>
>> 1. For English-as-a-second-language (ESL) people to learn correct English
>> word pronunciations.
>>
>> 2. For native English-speaking children to learn how to read. (See "No
>> Child Left Behind Act".)
>>
>> 3. Recreational use. Show off a sentence in the PIE form to your online
>> friends or use it in your commercial campaigns.
>>
>> Go here and see it yourself:
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/site/phoneticallyintuitiveenglish/
>
> Don't like it. It makes English look like Vietnamese.
world, but it does have one huge advantage shared only (as far as I can
see) by Dutch and Serbian among European languages, that it manages
without needing to be defaced with diacritical marks (though I suppose
that a Turk might argue that i has a diacritical mark).
The sample sentence is too short to deduce the system from, but I did
wonder why "fox" is spelt "fox", whereas "dog", with the same vowel
sound, is "dög".
> I learned to read
> English as she is writ without the help of such funny little marks. A bit
> of PIE in the sky there methinks.
--
Curlytop
Apr 30, 2012, 3:40:41 PM4/30/12
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden set the following eddies spiralling through the
space-time continuum:
> Yes. English spelling isn't the most rational and logical system in the
> world, but it does have one huge advantage shared only (as far as I can
> see) by Dutch and Serbian among European languages, that it manages
> without needing to be defaced with diacritical marks (though I suppose
> that a Turk might argue that i has a diacritical mark).
Would a Serb see Љ and Њ as diacritic variations of Л and Н?
> The sample sentence is too short to deduce the system from, but I did
> wonder why "fox" is spelt "fox", whereas "dog", with the same vowel
> sound, is "dög".
The o in dog has a different sound in AmE (much longer) from the o of fox,
which latter applies (as nearly as it can) to both words in BrE.
space-time continuum:
> Yes. English spelling isn't the most rational and logical system in the
> world, but it does have one huge advantage shared only (as far as I can
> see) by Dutch and Serbian among European languages, that it manages
> without needing to be defaced with diacritical marks (though I suppose
> that a Turk might argue that i has a diacritical mark).
> The sample sentence is too short to deduce the system from, but I did
> wonder why "fox" is spelt "fox", whereas "dog", with the same vowel
> sound, is "dög".
which latter applies (as nearly as it can) to both words in BrE.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Apr 30, 2012, 4:15:22 PM4/30/12
to
On 2012-04-30 19:40:41 +0000, Curlytop said:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden set the following eddies spiralling through the
> space-time continuum:
>
>> Yes. English spelling isn't the most rational and logical system in the
>> world, but it does have one huge advantage shared only (as far as I can
>> see) by Dutch and Serbian among European languages, that it manages
>> without needing to be defaced with diacritical marks (though I suppose
>> that a Turk might argue that i has a diacritical mark).
>
> Would a Serb see Љ and Њ as diacritic variations of Л and Н?
I was assuming not (as they're shown as separate letters in the
> Athel Cornish-Bowden set the following eddies spiralling through the
> space-time continuum:
>
>> Yes. English spelling isn't the most rational and logical system in the
>> world, but it does have one huge advantage shared only (as far as I can
>> see) by Dutch and Serbian among European languages, that it manages
>> without needing to be defaced with diacritical marks (though I suppose
>> that a Turk might argue that i has a diacritical mark).
>
> Would a Serb see Љ and Њ as diacritic variations of Л and Н?
alphabet) but we'd need to ask a Serb.
>
>> The sample sentence is too short to deduce the system from, but I did
>> wonder why "fox" is spelt "fox", whereas "dog", with the same vowel
>> sound, is "dög".
>
> The o in dog has a different sound in AmE (much longer) from the o of fox,
> which latter applies (as nearly as it can) to both words in BrE.
OK, that probably explains the ö.
>> The sample sentence is too short to deduce the system from, but I did
>> wonder why "fox" is spelt "fox", whereas "dog", with the same vowel
>> sound, is "dög".
>
> The o in dog has a different sound in AmE (much longer) from the o of fox,
> which latter applies (as nearly as it can) to both words in BrE.
--
athel
0 new messages