Re: Archiving and access & analysis = (bo po mo fo?)

Subject: Re: Archiving and access & analysis = (bo po mo fo?)
From: sylvi macCormac (
Date: Sun Oct 16 2005 - 14:19:27 EDT

Kevin wrote : i have developed my own very very crude shorthand / symbol
for creating timelines of sounds / sound files.

we could always start (stop) with that ...

xoxo, sylvi macCormac
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ / na / da / bc (i think)

Kevin Austin wrote:

> At 10:36 -0400 2005/10/16, Ned Bouhalassa wrote:
> >On 15-Oct-05, at 11:56 PM, Kevin Austin wrote:
> >
> >>Such a project would face the same issues that all archiving has
> >>to, namely, how to sort and catalog so that things can be found.
> >
> >Keywords might be sufficient.
> In my experience, this is not "trivial" (*)
> There is a 50+ year history of failure here. The 'keyword' dictionary
> / thesaurus needs to be linked to the sound files in a meaningful
> way. I have developed my own very very crude shorthand / symbol set
> for creating timelines of sounds / sound files.
> The nature of the beast is hierarchical as it is, IME, perceptual.
> An analysis assignment given to all classes in ea at Concordia is the
> "10 word" description. Given a (simple) piece such as Gilles Gobeil's
> Le vertige inconnu, how many (different) keywords would expect to
> find from 100 students?
> If this piece generated 60 or 70 keywords, imagine a work like
> Christian Calon's Minuit. If every piece generates (even only) 30
> keywords, with 300 pieces, there are now about 300 keywords shared by
> 300 pieces. The keyword "biff!" links to 17 pieces. These would need
> to be indexed links, not "simply" ... "In this piece there is a sound
> that sounds like "biff!"."
> It would be possible to consider the "keyword" concept somewhat
> parallel to the idea of the "radical" (**) in written Chinese.
> There have been propositions for 'dictionaries' and thesaurusi (sic)
> of sounds. A dictionary / thesaurus is not a mechanical object; it
> is, IMV, the realization of an underlying perceptual and
> organizational process.
> If you would like to lightly explore such a system, have a look at
> the Chinese phonemic system: bo po mo fo
> Read through the sequence and you will find in this exquisite
> application of thought that while 5 year old children learn to be
> able to pronounce Mandarin words (characters), they also learn the
> basis of articulatory phonetics. (The symbols start from the front of
> the mouth and move to the throat.)
> The sequence of consonants being: b p m f d t n l g k h j
> This is the organization of an existing, but closed, body of
> material(s). Quite brilliant.
> Best
> Kevin
> (*)
> trivial
> adj.
> Mathematics.
> Of, relating to, or being the simplest possible case; self-evident.
> (**)
> Aradical (from Latin radix, meaning "root") is a basic identifiable
> component of every Chinese character. (This includes not only Chinese
> Hanzi , but also the Japanese Kanji ,Korean Hanja and Vietnamese Ch
> nm and Ch nho.) In languages that use Chinese characters, a radical
> is called (Pinyin : bsh?u; Japanese bushu and Korean busu ),
> literally meaning "section header". Radicals are important to the
> organization and use of Chinese dictionaries, Japanese Kanji
> dictionaries, and Korean Hanja dictionaries.
> Despite initial appearances, Chinese characters are not unstructured
> glyphs . They are composed of some number of distinct, simpler
> elements composed of one or more lines (generally called strokes when
> referring to Chinese writing). It would be hard to imagine
> maintaining a system as long lasting as Chinese writing without some
> internal structure because it would be nearly impossible to memorize
> so many characters if each were constructed completely arbitrarily.
> Instead, Chinese characters are in practice built out of specific
> components called radicals .

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:13 EST