Wednesday, 27 July 2005 01:39 pm
(no subject)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Lately I've taken a few tasks that involve editing an interview transcription and checking it against the recording. This can be interesting and highly informative, but the computer sometimes has problems. This latest one required an application new to me. On the one hand, it allows for speed changes (without octave changes somehow) and skipping at set intervals; on the other hand, you can't scroll or tell it the exact second from which you want to start. This is a minor pain when I have to restart after closing an application, but it's a considerable pain when I have to listen to a hard-to-understand portion (usually an undefined acronym) again and again. To make matters worse, yesterday it mysteriously refused to recognize speed changes. Whenever I wanted to go back a split second, I had to go back at least 30 seconds. Hopefully that won't happen with this next recording I anticipate.
The original transcript this time was amusing but ultimately unfortunate. We had gotten it from another organization, and in basically every paragraph, anywhere from 1 to 20 words in a row were missing. I can forgive them for altering someone's words to avoid bad grammar - a common problem with oral interviews - but 9 times out of 10, they would either convert a contraction to its spelled-out form or vice versa. I briefly wondered if segments had been transcribed by machine without human intervention. The most common mishearings were "lack tags" instead of "lactation" and, I kid you not, "drugs" instead of "duration." Was somebody on them?
My mom has her own funny account from back when she transcribed from a dictaphone. She kept hearing "Sweet Pea" after the addressee's name and before the apparent address. It was actually "Suite P." My mom was mortified, but her employer found it hilarious.
The original transcript this time was amusing but ultimately unfortunate. We had gotten it from another organization, and in basically every paragraph, anywhere from 1 to 20 words in a row were missing. I can forgive them for altering someone's words to avoid bad grammar - a common problem with oral interviews - but 9 times out of 10, they would either convert a contraction to its spelled-out form or vice versa. I briefly wondered if segments had been transcribed by machine without human intervention. The most common mishearings were "lack tags" instead of "lactation" and, I kid you not, "drugs" instead of "duration." Was somebody on them?
My mom has her own funny account from back when she transcribed from a dictaphone. She kept hearing "Sweet Pea" after the addressee's name and before the apparent address. It was actually "Suite P." My mom was mortified, but her employer found it hilarious.
Reminds me of a song...
Sweet Pea
Tommy Roe
Oh, Sweet Pea
Come on and dance with me
Come on, come on, come on and dance with me
Oh, Sweet Pea
Won't you be my girl
Won't you, won't you, won't you be my girl
I went to a dance just the other night
I saw a girl there she was out of sight
I asked a friend of mine who she could be
He said that her friends just call her Sweet Pea
Oh, Sweet Pea
Come on and dance with me
Come on, come on, come on and dance with me
Oh, Sweet Pea
Won't you be my girl
Won't you, won't you, won't you be my girl
I walked on over and I asked her to dance
Thinkin' maybe later on
We'd be makin' romance
But every guy there was thinkin'like me
I had to stand in line
To get a dance with Sweet Pea
Oh, Sweet Pea
Come on and dance with me
Come on, come on, come on and dance with me
Oh, Sweet Pea
Won't you be my girl
Won't you, won't you, won't you be my girl
I finally got to whisper sweet words in her ear
Convinced her that we oughta get away from there
We took a little walk
I held her close to me
And underneath the stars I said to Sweet Pea
Oh, Sweet Pea I love you can't you see
Love you, love you, love you can't you see
Oh, Sweet Pea
Won't you be my girl
Won't you, won't you, won't you be my girl
no subject
Re: Reminds me of a song...
Re: Reminds me of a song...