currently, for my research, i am analyzing sound files (e.g. the horse is kicking a cow) in order to determine the word onsets and offsets. i do this by opening the file of each experimental sentence (e.g. the boy is being splashed by a girl), zooming in 5 or 6 times, then tediously highlighting each individual word, and recording its onset and offset. there are 64 sound files, each with 6-8 words. highlighting an individual word involves looking at the sound wave and estimating where it starts and stops (where it merges into other words), then highlighting that estimation, listening to it several-a bunch of times, and making adjustments to the estimated onset and offset.

some words are easy. they start with plosive voiceless stops like /k/ or /p/. their sound wave has a distinctive abrupt amplitude change following silence. some are less wonderful, but still have a distinctive visual sound wave. they start with voiceless fricatives like /f/ or /s/ and have sound waves that are "noisy"--just a mess of amplitude with no discernable repeating pattern. also included here are the nasals: /m/ and /n/. nasal sound waves are highly regular and sine-wave-esque.

then there are the problem cases. the words beginning with /h/ or /th/ or /v/. they start almost imperceptibly from silence. even more problematic are the following strings: "by a" (say it. it's not by stop a, but baya. one word. the /y/ blends right into the /a/.) or "is splashing" (again, the /s/ from "is" and the /s/ from "splashing" aren't separable. i end up just picking a random spot in the middle.)

but even worse than all that are the cases where i isolate myself (it's me speaking on the sound files) saying "a" after some verb that ends in "-ing". the "a" gets really nasal, and by itself, just sounds like a water bird honking. perhaps in pain. i know that it's not noticeable when heard in the context of the sentence, and is in fact required by coarticulation. i also know, objectively, that i do not possess the *most* mellifluous voice ever heard, but hearing myself honking over high quality headphones, over and over and over and over again, has shredded any illusions i might have had. sigh.

smite, smote, smitten

02 October 2002 - 2:28 pm

Nunuv Yerbisnes says: and i could have coffee & bagels waitinggggggg

Nunuv Yerbisnes says: or i could make david bring them :)

borogoves says: heh. yeah, take advantage of his smittenness.

Nunuv Yerbisnes says: and hoo boy! he sure is smitten

Nunuv Yerbisnes says: but to be fair.....i'm pretty smitten too

Nunuv Yerbisnes says: can you even *be* "pretty" smitten or "very" smitten?

Nunuv Yerbisnes says: don't you either smite someone, or not smite them?

borogoves says: see, the thing is, 'smite' has a totally different connotation, mais non? definitely the same word, but definitely different connotations. i mean, if god smites someone, then he/she couldn't be said to be smitten with them (or the other way around, i'd imagine). and if you're smitten with someone, then i wouldn't imagine you'd want to smite them, or be smitten by them.

Nunuv Yerbisnes says: true, and of course my question was tongue-in-cheek, as always......perhaps the difference is between being smitten BY someone, and being smitten WITH someone

Nunuv Yerbisnes says: i'd hate to say that david ever smote me

Nunuv Yerbisnes says: although d--- smote me once

Nunuv Yerbisnes says: but i was really pissed about it

Nunuv Yerbisnes says: that's a great word, smite

mimsy says: agreed. love and kisses for smite, and even more for smote, methinks.