Print

Print


Hi Valerie, Steve... 

 

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... 

 

All best

 

Stefan

 

 

  _____  

Von: SignWriting List: Read and Write Sign Languages
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Charles Butler
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Dezember 2013 23:53
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: Design for SignPuddle 3: parts-of-speech and morphology of sign
language

 

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. 

 

That will become an impossible burden to lexicographers. Creating a search
engine that can handle a bunch of parameters is fine, but who is going to go
through every single sign and assign them all possible entries? The burden
becomes impossible, and is no longer useful to an actual user of SignWriting
as a writing system, not a linguistic tool.  

 

Charles Butler
[log in to unmask]
240-764-5748
Clear writing moves business forward.

 

  _____  

From: Rachel Channon <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Design for SignPuddle 3: parts-of-speech and morphology of sign
language

 

That diagram is interesting.  hmm.  A complete list of morphological
characteristics might be hard – I don’t think it is as settled as parts of
speech.

In my mind, morphology really translates to: some named characteristic of a
group of signs or a group of morphemes.  Practically speaking, in most sign
languages, a sign is almost the same thing as a morpheme – that is in most
sign languages most simple signs are one morpheme.  (This is quite different
from spoken languages where many word are made up of two or more morphemes
as in disinterested which has at least 3 morphemes: dis + interest + ed.)
However, this isn’t always true.  For example, ASL has a negative
incorporation element of the hand twisting/rotating (as in DON’T-KNOW,
DON’T-WANT) that is at the morpheme level.   Compounds are usually two
morphemes. Furthermore, under some theories, classifiers can be considered
to be bundles of many morphemes – the handshape is one or more morpheme, the
location another set, the action another set, orientation…etc etc.  

So there are really at least four elements of this information:  1) How many
morphemes are there in a sign (usually 1, sometimes 2, sometimes  many,
other choices less common). 2) are the morphemes simultaneous or sequential
and 3) for each morpheme, what is its morpheme group, if any? and 4) is the
sign as a whole in some morphological group?  

Examples:

DON’T-WANT: 2 simultaneous morphemes:  WANT + Negative incorporation

WOMAN: 2 sequential morphemes: GIRL + FINE.  The sign is a compound

J-B (job): 2 sequential morphemes: J + B.  Each element is fingerspelling;
the entire sign is a fingerspelled loan sign.

MOTHER: 1 morpheme

BAKE-ER: 2 sequential morphemes BAKE + ER (person affix).  Some people might
classify this as a compound, some might call it an affixed form

 

 

Given this complexity, it might make sense to set up 

1) a simple set of choices that allow multiple choices, so that I could
select for example classifier AND compound. An initial list:

 

Classifier, compound, fingerspelling – one handed, fingerspelling – two
handed, fingerspelled loan sign, character sign, assimilated compound,
compound, negative incorporation, clitic, affix, initialized sign, phrase,
inflected verb, uninflected verb, locational verb, noun-verb pair, repeating
or non-repeating signs, numbers, gestural, pantomimic, iconic. Classifiers
are subdivided in many ways by different linguists, so some linguists might
want to add to the list of classifiers – for example, classifiers for
handling objects vs. motion vs. drawing-in-the-air and so on.

 

2) a second set of choices specifying number of morphemes that defaults to 1
and allows numeric write-ins plus the choices innumerable, uncertain, and
many, 

3) a fixed choice set for either simultaneous or sequential, 

and 4) a free form area for additional information.

I hope that I haven’t forgotten something utterly obvious.

Rachel

 

 

 

From: SignWriting List: Read and Write Sign Languages
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen E Slevinski
Jr
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Design for SignPuddle 3: parts-of-speech and morphology of sign
language

 

Hi SignWriting List,

This has been a great year, but I'm woeful behind on several project.  I
appreciate all of the positive work people have been able to do with
SignPuddle.  The long awaited work on SignPuddle 3 continues. Next year will
be a break out year for written sign language across the globe.

https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Incubator:Test_wikis_of_sign_l
anguages

I'm finalizing the database for SignPuddle 3.  I'm very impressed with MySQL
Workbench and the diagramming tool in particular. (image below)

Database design
--------------
For individual entries, I have designed the parts-of-speech solution, but
not the morphology solution yet.

For parts-of-speech, there is a small list of values for the most common
choices.  noun, verb, adjective, adverb, sentence, other.  This list can be
translated into other languages.

Additionally, each entry has a separate parts-of-speech text field, which
can be used for a more accurate description or a value outside of the common
list.

I was considering a similar strategy for morphology.  First, a new table
with a static list of the most common and universal choices.  Second, a
freeform text field for each entry for alternate descriptions and complex
analysis.

Researching morphology, it appears there are several kinds of analysis, each
with its own classifications and descriptions.  Is a single list too
simplistic to be helpful?  I'd appreciate any discussion of the topic.

Morphology list: monosyllable, compound, ... ?

Thanks,
-Steve 

PS - Here is part of the working diagram for the database.  I haven't added
anything for morphology yet. 
cid:[log in to unmask]

________________________________________________ 

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
<http://listserv.valenciacollege.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SW-L&A=1> &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

 

________________________________________________ 


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


________________________________________________


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