Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!mtune!whuts!homxb!houdi!marty1
From: marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.std.internat
Subject: Re: generalised alphabets
Message-ID: <1296@houdi.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 31-Aug-87 18:37:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: houdi.1296
Posted: Mon Aug 31 18:37:32 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Sep-87 07:31:24 EDT
References: <15488@mordor.s1.gov> <1209@pdn.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 24
Summary: 32 bits might be enough for phonemes and graphemes...?
Xref: mnetor sci.lang:1274 comp.std.internat:196

In article <1209@pdn.UUCP>, alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) writes:
> A Proposal:
> 
> If every letter for any human alphabet, and every ideograph, were given
> a unique 32-bit (for example) id number, it would be possible to create
> a 'character look-up table' ...
> 
> Also, the possible human speech sounds should be given unique id
> numbers (is 32 bits sufficient?), ....

A 32-bit number could code any possible character that can be described
in a square 16 pixels on a side.  I think some Chinese ideographs are
more complex than that.  With run-length coding, the power of a 32-bit
number is greater, and it might be adequate.

I'm even less certain about the representation of speech sounds.  The
possible positions of the organs of articulation are continuously
variable.  Human speech can be as fast as about 10 distinct sounds per
second.  Coding each sound in 32 bits implies that a vocoder could
encode human speech at 320 bits per second.  Is that possible?

M. B. Brilliant					Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520	(201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733	ihnp4!houdi!marty1