LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SW-L Archives


SW-L Archives

SW-L Archives


SW-L@LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SW-L Home

SW-L Home

SW-L  December 2013

SW-L December 2013

Subject:

Re: AW: Design for SignPuddle 3: parts-of-speech and morphology of sign language

From:

Natasha Escalada-Westland <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SignWriting List: Read and Write Sign Languages

Date:

Sun, 15 Dec 2013 08:39:43 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (47 lines)

Hello,

As an ASL teacher who actively uses the ASL Signpuddle dictionary in class,
I'm all for giving students seeking correct ways to sign a concept some
guidance as to what might be approved/accepted signs and spellings of those
signs.  

With regards to the form of the sign vs. spelling of the sign, would it make
sense to have those who want their writing included as approved/accepted
first have the sign itself vetted as an actual ASL sign, or regional
variation via some type of video and then the spelling itself could be
approved?  There are many online ASL video dictionaries, some created by
individuals, some by institutions or working groups. Sometimes in the past I
have referred to these dictionaries as references when I write a sign. 
Sometimes I will refer to a work of literature on video in ASL when I write
a sign.  References to v