On 12/12/13, 5:38 AM, Stefan Wöhrmann wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Well I haven´t got the time, the knowledge, the energy to work with more options as I do right now. I am happy that “find by word” with different options ...and find by symbol is possible,

For my work at school there is nothing more needed – as far as I can see now...

Hi Stefan,

No worries.  I'll be fixing up the current usage and adding some new functionality.  Basic usage will stay the same and not require additional steps or knowledge.

The biggest change will be a status for each entry.
* provisional
* approved
* nonstandard
* rejected

New entries are created as provisional.  Editors can later mark the entries as approved, nonstandard, or rejected.

This is needed to clean up the search results and have a measure of a dictionary's contents.

On 12/12/13, 9:57 AM, Valerie Sutton wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
After reading these comments, it sounds like to me it is best not to include this feature of “morphology” in SignPuddle 3, when there may not be an equivalent in the sign language world that matches such a term and it will only confuse all of us - it actually could be a negative for the software.
I agree that there probably isn't a universal morphology list. 

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
There are so many other features in SignPuddle 3 that we need so badly…thank you for giving us those, Steve -

Hi Val, I understand there is a lot of pain.  I'm trying to focus on what needs done sooner rather than later. Thanks for your patience.

The initial database design is working but needs to be cleaned up.  The design choices have far reaching implications and require serious consideration.

On 12/11/13, 4:53 PM, Charles Butler wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
My only comment is that I hope all dictionary entries don't require a linguist to actually put them in or to find them. I have been excited about SignWriting because it has allowed me to write what I actually sign, not describe it in a spoken language for a third party. 

Hi Charles,

The dictionary is to help support writers of all kinds.  The additional information is not required, but an optional description.

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
That will become an impossible burden to lexicographers.
Let's not think of it as a burden, but as a possibility.

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
The burden becomes impossible, and is no longer useful to an actual user of SignWriting as a writing system, not a linguistic tool.  
Yes, SignWriting is a writing system and will stay that way.  The linguistic additions are outside of the SignWriting script and not an integral part.



Valerie Sutton SignWriting List moderator [log in to unmask]

Post Messages to the SignWriting List: [log in to unmask]

SignWriting List Archives & Home Page http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist

Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages http://listserv.valenciacollege.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SW-L&A=1