On 12/12/13, 5:38 AM, Stefan Wöhrmann wrote:
> 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:
> 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.

> 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 

On 12/11/13, 4:53 PM, Charles Butler wrote:
> 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.

> That will become an impossible burden to lexicographers.
Let's not think of it as a burden, but as a possibility.

> 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

Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages