Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should UW be included in the phoneme set? #10

Open
jaeseongyou opened this issue Feb 13, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Should UW be included in the phoneme set? #10

jaeseongyou opened this issue Feb 13, 2020 · 1 comment

Comments

@jaeseongyou
Copy link

jaeseongyou commented Feb 13, 2020

Should UW be included in the phoneme set?
It seems g2p.phonemes operates under the general rule of of excluding the 'parent' category when its variants exist. For example, AA is not included since its variants AA0, AA1, AA2 are in the set. Same for AE, AH, AW, AY, etc. But UW seems to be the only exception. Furthermore, when I do simple frequency analyses on sizable corpora (not super rigorously though), UW never occurs while its variants do. I wonder if the phoneme set can safely forgo UW.

@iclementine
Copy link

I have the same question for this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants