4 ms·

It was based on an existing TTS, IndicT5. I wonder how different is “Sanskrit Chanting” to languages it could already do, like Hindi. Is it largely the glyph—to

by ks2048 3mo ago

It was based on an existing TTS, IndicT5. I wonder how different is “Sanskrit Chanting” to languages it could already do, like Hindi. Is it largely the glyph—to-phoneme that needs relearning? Or pitch control? Or more?

sophrosyne42 3mo ago
There are sounds in sanskrit that don't exist in Hindi, including vocalizations that exist in Sanskrit which are omitted in Hindi for the same glyphs. Additionally, Sanskrit meter has pretty specific rules on which should be stressed and unstressed, when to have pitch changes, and the length of each sound.
sieve 3mo ago
The biggest problem with a lot of northern languages is the awful schwa deletion. Even the Marathi of Maharashtra is subject to it. Strangely, the Marathi of Thanjavur has far, far less of it from what little I have heard of it. Sanskrit does not do schwa deletion. So engines must map the phonemes to Kannada/Telugu (which support the full complement of Sanskrit sounds) if they want to get somewhere. A lot of this can be solved if the backend supports ipa. But this is for classical Sanskrit. Vedic recitation is too complex (and I know too little about it) to handle without a LOT of work.
- prox 3mo ago
  Luckily a lot of research has gone into Vedic recitation from an academic perspective if someone would take up the mantle.
- delta_p_delta_x 3mo ago
  It's pretty funny reading comments on social media by north Indians whenever something on Sanskrit is posted. 'It's Ram, not Rama, it's yog, not yoga'... And they have no idea what schwa deletion is.
  - ashishb 3mo ago
    > It's Ram, not Rama, it's yog, not yoga'... And they have no idea what schwa deletion is. It is neither. The fundamental issue is that there is no way to represent the schwa sound in English[1]. All of a,e,i,o,u have been used to communicate the schwa (or schwa-like) sound in English. - The `a` in about - The `e` in taken - The `i` in cousin - The `o` in button - The `u` in upon 1 - https://ashishb.net/linguistics/schwa/ https://ashishb.net/linguistics/schwa/
    - delta_p_delta_x 3mo ago
      I wouldn't say 'neither', because by your own example, 'a' in English can represent ⟨ə⟩. That every other vowel letter also can is English's low level of phoneticism with respect to the script it uses. Many other languages using the Latin script (German, Italian, Finnish) don't have this problem, what you see is what get. Oddly enough amongst the Indic languages, Tamil has precisely the same problem: க, ப, ட may be voiced or voiceless plosives depending on context. Sanskrit loanwords in Tamil are typically pronounced very differently compared to their original in Sanskrit, or even in Telugu. Personally when transliterating any Indic language I tend to use ISO-15919, and in that scheme, it is Rāma, and 'a' represents the schwa. Or Rāmaḥ, Rāmam, Rāmē, or Rāmasya, whichever grammatical attachment is appropriate.
      - ashishb 3mo ago
        > That every other vowel letter also can is English's low level of phoneticism The level of phoneticism between English language and its latin script is not evenly spread. For example, the letter "c" might mean /s/ or /k/ sound. However, the letter "k" almost certainly means /k/ sound. In some ways, the schwa sound in English the worst as there is no symbol which is committed even partially towards it. > it is Rāma, and 'a' represents the schwa. Sure, but if my name is Rāma, I have to choose either "Ram" or "Rama" or "Raama" for my passport name. Or legal name in most places, non-alphabetic symbols do not work with all modern systems. > Many other languages using the Latin script (German, Italian, Finnish) don't have this problem, what you see is what get. English imports spellings from other cultures and adds its own layer of pronunciations. Other languages probably don't do it as often.
graphcolorer 3mo ago
Interestingly, the paper says that the glyph to phoneme conversion is lossy for Hindi (Devanagari) script due to schwa deletion, so one of the key innovations here is that the Sanskrit is first transliterated into Kannada before TTS.

by ks2048 3mo ago

sophrosyne42 3mo ago

There are sounds in sanskrit that don't exist in Hindi, including vocalizations that exist in Sanskrit which are omitted in Hindi for the same glyphs. Additionally, Sanskrit meter has pretty specific rules on which should be stressed and unstressed, when to have pitch changes, and the length of each sound.

sieve 3mo ago

The biggest problem with a lot of northern languages is the awful schwa deletion. Even the Marathi of Maharashtra is subject to it. Strangely, the Marathi of Thanjavur has far, far less of it from what little I have heard of it. Sanskrit does not do schwa deletion. So engines must map the phonemes to Kannada/Telugu (which support the full complement of Sanskrit sounds) if they want to get somewhere. A lot of this can be solved if the backend supports ipa. But this is for classical Sanskrit. Vedic recitation is too complex (and I know too little about it) to handle without a LOT of work.

prox 3mo ago
Luckily a lot of research has gone into Vedic recitation from an academic perspective if someone would take up the mantle.
delta_p_delta_x 3mo ago
It's pretty funny reading comments on social media by north Indians whenever something on Sanskrit is posted. 'It's Ram, not Rama, it's yog, not yoga'... And they have no idea what schwa deletion is.
- ashishb 3mo ago
  > It's Ram, not Rama, it's yog, not yoga'... And they have no idea what schwa deletion is. It is neither. The fundamental issue is that there is no way to represent the schwa sound in English[1]. All of a,e,i,o,u have been used to communicate the schwa (or schwa-like) sound in English. - The `a` in about - The `e` in taken - The `i` in cousin - The `o` in button - The `u` in upon 1 - https://ashishb.net/linguistics/schwa/ https://ashishb.net/linguistics/schwa/
  - delta_p_delta_x 3mo ago
    I wouldn't say 'neither', because by your own example, 'a' in English can represent ⟨ə⟩. That every other vowel letter also can is English's low level of phoneticism with respect to the script it uses. Many other languages using the Latin script (German, Italian, Finnish) don't have this problem, what you see is what get. Oddly enough amongst the Indic languages, Tamil has precisely the same problem: க, ப, ட may be voiced or voiceless plosives depending on context. Sanskrit loanwords in Tamil are typically pronounced very differently compared to their original in Sanskrit, or even in Telugu. Personally when transliterating any Indic language I tend to use ISO-15919, and in that scheme, it is Rāma, and 'a' represents the schwa. Or Rāmaḥ, Rāmam, Rāmē, or Rāmasya, whichever grammatical attachment is appropriate.
    - ashishb 3mo ago
      > That every other vowel letter also can is English's low level of phoneticism The level of phoneticism between English language and its latin script is not evenly spread. For example, the letter "c" might mean /s/ or /k/ sound. However, the letter "k" almost certainly means /k/ sound. In some ways, the schwa sound in English the worst as there is no symbol which is committed even partially towards it. > it is Rāma, and 'a' represents the schwa. Sure, but if my name is Rāma, I have to choose either "Ram" or "Rama" or "Raama" for my passport name. Or legal name in most places, non-alphabetic symbols do not work with all modern systems. > Many other languages using the Latin script (German, Italian, Finnish) don't have this problem, what you see is what get. English imports spellings from other cultures and adds its own layer of pronunciations. Other languages probably don't do it as often.

graphcolorer 3mo ago

Interestingly, the paper says that the glyph to phoneme conversion is lossy for Hindi (Devanagari) script due to schwa deletion, so one of the key innovations here is that the Sanskrit is first transliterated into Kannada before TTS.