From: Adam Frost <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: AW: Design for SignPuddle 3: parts-of-speech and morphology of sign language
Interesting discussion. I've been following it, but haven't had much to contribute. As for the rating of approved/rejected, this is only something that would be set by editors, correct? I guess that means many people wouldn't be using it. ;-)And what exactly is being approved or rejected? The spelling of the sign? Or the sign itself? How would non-standard play into it?If a sign were marked as rejected or non-standard, would it be possible to place a reason so that people would understand why and maybe improve the writing?And if someone did change the writing and the rating is for the writing, should the rating be set back to provisional again?Just some questions that I have about the feature. :-)Adam
On Dec 13, 2013, at 8:03 AM, "Rachel Channon" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:________________________________________________One thing I am a little puzzled by. I think the different suggestions for fields are all worthwhile. At the same time, I am aware that I myself would use some but not all of these fields. For example, I probably would not use the standard/provisional/rejected field much. But that doesn’t bother me at all, because I just wouldn’t enter that information. So I am happy for other people to use that field, and I will just leave it blank. Maybe later I might want to use it, who knows? I think for certain applications it could be very helpful.My point is that I think we don’t need to worry about fields we won’t use. The questions that I think are important are: how many people would use a proposed field? And within that group, are there any concerns about how the field is structured?And of course even if I didn’t plan to use a particular field, I could still have opinions and suggestions that might be very helpful to Steve and Valerie.Yes, as for the new categories, it might not be clear to users whether those terms (non-standard, etc) are meant to apply to the signs that are recorded or to the particular way of spelling a given sign. At either level, I can also imagine some problems that might arise over making that call (who makes it, according to what criteria, etc) - issues such as those Stefan has pointed to (applying I think the understanding of the criteria as indicating the sign) and those Maria raises (regarding the spelling).
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 12, 2013, at 7:54 PM, "maria galea" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Hi again!About parts of speech, I agree with Rachel that parts of speech for sign languages are usually not so straightforward (like English). A sign may sometimes become a verb or noun depending on its context. For instance in LSM, the sign DOOR can be either nominal or verbal depending on its place within a sentence: MAN-DOOR would mean 'the man opens the door' (where it is verbal) whereas in DOOR-BREAK the same sign is nominal meaning 'the door broke'...but it is good to have the option to list them I guess and leave them empty at will..yes Valerie I definitely see the value of SignPuddle as an editing program for all, even beginners - I just thought it would be good if Puddle could remain accessible to all, yet become less anonymous - for instance on the internet there are millions of blogs and billions of blog-posts but they are rarely anonymous - and in being more transparent has its advantages :)Re the statuses:* provisional
* rejectedI think I understand Stefan's concern, because how can spellings be judged when the orthography of a given sign language is not yet standardized. All spellings are acceptable in the sense that they are all attempts towards the representation of a sign in written form (irrespective of skill in SW). Rather than these statuses, could you mark the spellings with the statuses of representation 01, representation 02, representation 03 etc of a given sign, and somehow link these different spellings of the same sign (lexeme) under one target sign. This would make the count of the sign entries truly sign/lexeme counts rather than a count of every spelling? ... once again not sure this is possible, but just thought I'd share my thoughts about it just the same,regards,mariaOn 12 December 2013 21:52, Stefan Woehrmann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:“The biggest change will be a status for each entry.
* rejectedHi Steve– I am afraid that this will cause problems – who am I to judge things like these categories ...no – all I take care of as much as possible is to make sure that most entries should be written correctly .. I do not stop to mention at any workshop or meeting that it is not the question of signing or signlanguage what I am interested in – as a SignWriting scribe – I am interested to write, whatever I see as a given signing – performance. That is the reason that it is so wonderfull to add several dialects or variations of a given sign/term ... Your new categories should be entered in private puddles – people may hire a staff or a group of a scientific comunity may want to think about this ...Just my ideaStefan“The biggest change will be a status for each entry.
* rejectedOn 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...
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.
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 consideration.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.
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.
-Steve________________________________________________SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATIONJoin, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages http://listserv.valenciacollege.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SW-L&A=1 ________________________________________________SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION________________________________________________SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION________________________________________________SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATIONSIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION________________________________________________SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATIONSignWriting List Archives & Home Page http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlistJoin, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages http://listserv.valenciacollege.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SW-L&A=1
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