I'm sorry, but I do not think that mirroring the video is a
solution. It would be like viewing a left-handed signer, and you
would have to remember the other conversions.
Mathematically, the receptive/expressive signing spaces are
symmetrically placed/ mirrored according to a vertical line
halfway between the signer and the viewer.
If all symbols were following the same rule when swirched
between left/right and forward/backward, this could be managed
mathematically.
In SignWriting, some symbols change filling (hand symbols), as
well as orientation; whereas other symbols just change direction
(forward/backward) and others stay just the same.
It is possible to work through the whole set of symbols and make
sets/ groups of symbols that behave in the same way, and write
the rules for them. But it is a big job.
I still wish you good luck with your work, and I'm sure that one
day we will get this program, when someone gets the funding,
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:17:37 +0200
> From:
[log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: annotation in receptive rather than
expressive view point
> To:
[log in to unmask]
>
> Just another idea:
>
> what about simply mirroring the video to be transcribed?
That could be
> easily done! And then, the transcription is easily done
in expressive form.
>
> Oscar.
>
> Am 02.10.2012 14:56, schrieb Charles Butler:
> > Thanks Ingvild,
> >
> > I am steadily going through the DEIT LIBRAS
dictionary and putting it on
> > line (with permission). It gives me a chance to read
the description,
> > look at both the illustration and the signwriting
and transcribe it
> > again. It's more than 8000 signs, so by the time we
get it all in, it
> > should rival the ASL dictionary in scope. I'm hoping
to get permission
> > to work with INES (the sign language school in Rio
de Janeiro) to add
> > the signs they have which are not currently in DEIT
Libras.
> > Charles Butler
> >
[log in to unmask]
> > 240-764-5748
> > Clear writing moves business forward.
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Ingvild Roald
<[log in to unmask]>
> > *To:*
[log in to unmask]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:02 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: annotation in receptive rather than
expressive view point
> >
> > Hi Charles,
> >
> > I was answering to the 'translate in your head'
problem - which I see as
> > easier if it is done manually, not just cognitively.
I do understand the
> > differnce between machine translation and manual/
personal translation,
> > and I do see your point. I hope that someday w will
have an automatic
> > translation from video, but that will be at least as
hard as
> > voice-recognition systems. For natural langugaes,
that is most often a
> > huge task, because of the many personal and
dialectical differences. - I
> > think that making an avatar signing from what is
written in expressive,
> > to be viewed in receptive mode, is an easier and
therefore more
> > available sort of program. To acheive this, the
automatic transformation
> > between expressive and receptive writing would be a
step. But this needs
> > time, and funding. In teh meantime, we have to
struggle along doing this
> > tranformation by body and mind, and making the
dictionary puddles as
> > well as the litterature puddles and others seadily
bigger and better.
> >
> > Ingvild
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 03:36:31 -0700
> > From:
[log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: annotation in receptive rather than
expressive view point
> > To:
[log in to unmask]
> >
> > Ingvild, I understand, what I am talking about is
machine translation,
> > and the machine has to be taught to read a video, as
is, receptive, and
> > translate that into expressive. The point of machine
translation is just
> > that, having a sufficiently large recognition
program to translate a
> > third-party into expressive. Humans can internalize
and write, a machine
> > has to be taught to do so.
> >
> > Sometimes watching a video I may get a hand wrong,
or a twist in the
> > wrong direction, and if I write down what I see, I
can then correct it
> > to the opposite. That's my bias, and my early
history with SignWriting,
> > writing whatever I see, whether on my hands or
someone else's.
> > Charles Butler
> >
[log in to unmask]
> > 240-764-5748
> > Clear writing moves business forward.
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Ingvild Roald
<[log in to unmask]>
> > *To:*
[log in to unmask]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 2, 2012 6:09 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: annotation in receptive rather than
expressive view point
> >
> > As I see it, the easier way to convert from
receptive to expressive for
> > writing, is to view the video and copy the sign you
see by doing it
> > yourself. Then you write what you do, the sign as
you are making it from
> > viewing the video. That is, do the translation
/transistion manually
> > rather than 'in your head'.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Ingvild
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:02:50 +0200
> > > From:
[log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: annotation in receptive rather than
expressive view point
> > > To:
[log in to unmask]
> > >
> > > Hi Charles,
> > >
> > > thanks for your answer.
> > >
> > > > Oscar, as you have an assistant annotating
video tapes, trying to
> > > > translate in your head to an expressive
point of view may be driving
> > > > you crazy.
> > >
> > > Yes, I have been thinking about that too. And
it would be preferable to
> > > do annotation from the receptive view point.
However, I need the
> > > transcriptions in an expressive view point in
order to match all the
> > > other entries in SignPuddle (as I use them to
initialise my system). The
> > > manual annotations are intended to serve as
evaluation of the
> > > initialized system, thus they need to match.
> > >
> > > If there was an automatic (mathematical) way of
converting receptive
> > > into expressive view points, then we could do
the "easier" annotation.
> > > But I learnt from Steve Slevinski, that this
has not been implemented
> > > and to me it doesn't seem trivial to implement
it.
> > >
> > > Or does anybody think differently?
> > >
> > > Regards, Oscar.
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 28.09.2012 13:51, schrieb Charles Butler:
> > > > Oscar, as you have an assistant annotating
video tapes, trying to
> > > > translate in your head to an expressive
point of view may be
> > driving you
> > > > crazy. One project in Belo Horizonte is
using receptive SignWriting
> > > > specifically when annotating video tapes
so that you see parallel
> > > > movements, not mirror movements when you
look at them side by side. You
> > > > write what you see on the videotape, not
reverse it to your own hands.
> > > >
> > > > What this means is that the videotaped
person's left hand is on your
> > > > right, and the videotaped person's right
hand is on your left. You have
> > > > to remember that you are writing another
person's hands, not your own,
> > > > so when you look in a dictionary like
Delegs or any of the current
> > > > SignPuddles, you will not find what you
see on a videotape, but its
> > > > expressive equivalent.
> > > > Charles Butler
> > > >
[log in to unmask]
> > > > 240-764-5748
> > > > Clear writing moves business forward.
> > > >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > *From:* Charles Butler
<[log in to unmask]>
> > > > *To:*
[log in to unmask]
> > > > *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2012 7:29 AM
> > > > *Subject:* Re: help with signwriting
> > > >
> > > > Oscar,
> > > >
> > > > Reply, in the first sign, you are using a
"both hands" arrow when the
> > > > hands are moving separately. If you are
bringing the hands back toward
> > > > yourself, you need two arrows toward
yourself, put them next to each
> > > > hand rather than in the middle. This is a
common mistake as I'd be able
> > > > to read it, but the hands are not moving
in a common path. This is a
> > > > common mistake, a single arrow is only
used when both hands are
> > actually
> > > > together.
> > > >
> > > > In the second sign, your left hand is
pointed downward, but you are
> > > > using a right hand arrow moving twice. Use
a left hand arrow or a right
> > > > hand, not a mix. You could move your right
hand in this fashion, but
> > > > your hand would be twisted outward rather
awkwardly, unlikely that this
> > > > is what you mean.
> > > > Charles Butler
> > > >
[log in to unmask]
> > > > 240-764-5748
> > > > Clear writing moves business forward.
> > > >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > *From:* Oscar Koller
<[log in to unmask]>
> > > > *To:*
[log in to unmask]
> > > > *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2012 6:06 AM
> > > > *Subject:* help with signwriting
> > > >
> > > > Hello everybody,
> > > >
> > > > I added following appended 4 entries to
the German Sign Puddle. The
> > > > editors noted in each case that the
writing is not correct. Could
> > > > anybody explain to me, what should be
changed?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Oscar.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>