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, 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.
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,
> 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >