Why is Gabby's Wordspeller™ & Phonetic Dictionary exceptional?
This condensed book, "Gabby's Wordspeller™ & Phonetic Dictionary" is designed for students of English, dyslexics, those who are challenged with learning, sight or hearing.
The condensed version of "Gabby's" is a portable desktop paperback that is affordable to those who truly need the book. People who:
- Don't have a computer
- Don't wish to get onto the internet and perform a lengthy search
- Simply wish to quickly locate a misspelled word when not at a computer
- Want the suffix of a word (to spell the ending of the word correctly)
- Want the definition of a prefix
- Cannot locate their word with any spell checker or dictionary because of its phonetic spelling
The primary purpose of Gabby's is NOT designed to replace a standard dictionary (although it will suffice) that differentiates between nouns and verbs but is intended to be a QUICK pre-spell checker and cross-referencer (plus a few other things).
For a CONDENSED dictionary, 35,000 commonly used ROOT words (and uncommon words if cross-referenced or needing differentiation). There are actually, when compared to a standard dictionary over 100,000 words.
There was only room for a few proper nouns and due to its condensed nature, which required the development of rules on "how to use this book". Gabby's Wordspeller™ involves a very small learning curve (just as the thesaurus when we first started using it) but is so useful in four different respects.
Gabby's performs four actions that not one standard dictionary performs all of today.
Here's a nice little comparison between Gabby's unique capabilities when faced before the Number 1 spell checker on the market, ASpell Spell Helper. ASpell is considered the best spell checker and word suggestor on the international market. The program accesses tens of available spell checkers and dictionaries to attempt to locate the word you are trying to spell. Allow me to illustrate below the first three words that came to my mind which I plugged into this site.
Case scenario: I am writing an email to my friend who wants to know how the song is going that I've been working on to perform with my band next week. I'm attempting to describe the changes I made to the piece last night which I believe takes the song to the next level for the audience. I wish to describe short/brief musical strokes. The first phonetic word I type into Aspell is, "stukodo" because that's how the word sounds to me. I think it's spelled this way. After 10 minutes of opening websites and locating dictionaries I get a list of words that are suggested. This list is not alphabetized. I must click on each word it might be, to get to the definition. But... the true, actual word I'm looking for is not listed... but this I don't know because I don't know how to spell it. If only I were aware that the correct spelling I'm looking for is "staccato"...
After several attempts, my word (therefore my definition) is still not represented by ASpell. I am given stoccado and sticcado from a list of 41 words ...but no staccato to choose from. And remember, unbeknownst to me, I still am not any closer to finding the word I want, but think I am, so I start clicking on the other word choices from the list. Each click requires that I unblock my "pop-up blocker" which takes me to some major dictionary for another list of words. From this list, I start clicking again to go to individual pages with definitions. After I click to get to a definition (oops, no, not the right definition), I must click back to the previous page to that other list again, find another word then click again, and again, and again (now... where was I?).
All-in-all, I'm not realizing if any of these dictionaries is actually going to get me where I want to be. I am hoping I won't get lost and forget what I was doing before I started all this. I'm 15 minutes into this now and I haven't found my word and... for heaven's sake... isn't there an easier way to do this?????
YES, use Gabby's Wordspeller™. Your word can be located in seconds, and here's why: all the spell-checkers and dictionaries in the world cannot positively decipher all the phonetic human sounds because a computer based language cannot hear human based languages. Period. Put accent on one syllable, then another, then the next again and it changes everything about the word. Every dialect in every language puts varying accents on varying vowels and consonants.
For example, ASpell Spell Helper quotes that they use "...2 or 3 letter ISO (International Organization for Standardization) code...". This code is one of the 'ISO 639' varieties. Well, the methodology in Gabby's is also the first two or three letters. But... where was staccato in the list of 41 words that was provided by ASpell's results? The first three letters in staccato is 'sta' isn't it? So when I plugged in "stukodo" earlier, why wasn't 'sta' listed? The 'sta' which is what my staccato starts with wasn't listed. So their methodology of "... 2 or 3 letter ISO code..." is not fool proof. The ISO 639 types only burden a phonetic system in my opinion.
In Gabby's, you will find that "stukodo" is cross-referenced with two other similar words,' staccato' and 'stoccado'. You will also find the word you're looking for in less than 20 seconds in the book. Simple...
The second word I plugged into ASpell was "kords" because I'm looking for the word quartz and this is how my dyslexic friend spelled it ("t" and "d" are often interchanged by those with hearing difficulties who haven't mastered the English language). Could I find it? NO. In Gabby's you would find that kords will look like this:
kords, cord(s) / quart(s) / quartz / chords
Then I dropped the 'ds' in kords and added a 't' to get kort. I need to go to court tomorrow and I'm looking up the word as I hear it. Did not find it in ASpell.
In Gabby's you find...
kort, cord / court / quart / chord
In the expanded version of this Wordspeller™ I have employed the algorithm I've created in the condensed version PLUS ++ more. Not only do I employ the "... 2 or 3 letter ISO code..." just as ASpell does, I also employ the Diane Frank Code. The expounded coding allows that each vowel will be replaced with all similar vowels, eg; (a, e, i, o, u and sometimes y) plus those combinations of letters (consonants and vowels) which sound like and are similar to other sounds. For example: quiet "qw, qwu, qu, qua, qa, kw, kwa, kua", all are similar in sound and would all be represented just like in the condensed version. The expanded version will become available when there is a demand for it.
Another linguistic/phonetic word to play with is quit. Possible combo's are, "kwe, kwi, qwi, que, qwe, qwi" which produce the same sound. There are no ISO codes today which employs this along with the 2 or 3 letter code, which I support factually later in this briefing.
How about when a challenging phonetic sound lies in the middle of a word, beyond the first 2-3 letters in the commonly used ISO code that spell checkers use? Take the word aqua. Plug "okwu" into ASpell.
So please, for brevity's sake, go to aspell.net and plug in the word above... it's a fine example.
What I do know is that if the current computer programs continue adding to its database all the ways that people misspell a word, the choices of misspellings will grow and grow, until a person has 10 pages of misspelled words to choose from. How will this expedite getting them to their word quickly? It won't.
In Texas, people use the greeting "hello" but it sounds like "ulo" or "alo". Or it could be spelled helo or halo. In which case, if one looked up the word halo in Gabby's they would find the definition of "halo" as well as the cross-reference word "hello".
If they looked up helo they would find... simply... "hello" (not the 41 word list as with ASpell). Because the phonetic sound of helo will always be simply the word hello no matter what language someone speaks...and doesn't need to be complicated with ISO 639 and all its sub-references.
As it is currently, there is no standardized code for phonetics that any dictionary uses. An excerpt from an ongoing conversation in the standardization community concerning these phonetic orthographies...
"I agree with the sentiment for Wikipedia. It is however problematic that the arguments for the creation of new editions of Wikipedia are not always based on linguistic but often on political arguments...
...Having a connection to what is going to be the ISO-639-6 would indeed be beneficial, WiktionaryZ allows for the modelling of hierarchical relations that is part of the ISO-639-6 set-up. It being a wiki would allow people to come up with their arguments for why "their" language is not how it is perceived by those scientist types .. :) I am happy to say that we already ask people to create Swadesh lists for their language/dialect. We already have people interested in languages like Ripuarian or is it Koelsch in Wikipedia (this being a big continuum of hard to define dialects). We have already done some thinking on how to handle these types of non standardised orthographies."
According to to the International Phonetic Association (IPA) who has created its own 'sound language', when I asked if they were involved in creating ISO language based on phonetics responded,
"...Thank you very much for your enquiry, it comes as a very welcome stimulus. Just to fill you in: I have been asked (by ISO TC37) to set up a group of experts together with ... to address exactly the issue that you are raising. We are however right at the start of the activities, and are currently preparing a New Item Proposal where we have to motivate this need in order to set the process in motion..."
Looking forward to hearing from you and your research...
The two references I use above support the fact that the IPA has not created content to enable ISO to equip standard dictionaries and spell-checkers because they are still in the proposal phase. Therefore existing software and technology will limp on ahead without them for now. Thank goodness I put my 10 years into Gabbys which has placed this book a milestone ahead of the industry. While the giants fight it out politically as to whom and how they will create the "standards"... Gabby's is perched to flood the market with what she has already accomplished... her own standardization.
I have compiled folders full of surveys/research and statistics/interviews to support my methodology and/or algorithm (or the Diane Frank code), why it works and how it's different from any model out there today. Although I developed the methodology and/or algorithm over 10 years ago as the result of my collegiate research and surveys, it is still unique today. I have a degree from the Evergreen State College in communications and I raised a dyslexic daughter who tells her story on this website.