[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...
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">I agree that there probably isn't a universal morphology list.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.
[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 -
[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.
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">Let's not think of it as a burden, but as a possibility.That will become an impossible burden to lexicographers.
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">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.The burden becomes impossible, and is no longer useful to an actual user of SignWriting as a writing system, not a linguistic tool.
SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION
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