May 14, 2010
Hello Charles and Steve -
I noticed that Steve mentioned this in his message to Jonathan - there are several theories as to what sequence is best, and certainly your theory is the one that I personally also believed in, Charles, until recently I had a different experience and it changed my own personal theory...but I am just learning too...all theories are welcome and have value.
And Steve's software is so flexible that you can use any theory you choose to put signs into the Sequence you feel is best...so there is complete flexibility and no one is saying what is right or wrong...until we have very large dictionaries printed in book form, sorted by different theories, we actually will never know what really works for large groups of signers...so that is research that needs to be done someday...it is such a large subject that could be the dissertation for a Ph.D...
And thank you, Charles, for your extensive work on this topic already...and your work is an important milestone and valued...
And I too thought that writing the beginning handshapes first, and then the Location of those hands, would be the logical sequence too, until I started printing out dictionaries that were sorted by signs, with over 3000 signs in the dictionary...and when the amount of signs was a large number, like 3000 or more, and I tried to look-up a sign in this thick document, I found my experience was not what i expected...I wrote a message to the list about this about a year ago - I will need to find it -
I will be happy to explain this next message...I will write again...
On May 14, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Charles Butler wrote:
> "Charles advocates an irregular placement where placement is mixed with the handshapes."
> I guess my thought is that handshape comes first, then placement, then movement. It's not a mix, it's determining where the hands are located before you show what they do.
> Clear writing starts with the contact point, so you have to show where the hands are before you can show where they move.
> I'm trying to follow your theory here, but the spelling, I thought, starts with what do I see, and what do I write, if I am teaching someone how to write.
> 1) what are my handshapes.
> 2) where are they located.
> 3) what are they doing.
> How can spelling contradict that? Is that from discovery of how Deaf look things up. How can spelling contradict how you write things down?
> I'm really confused now.
> From: Steve Slevinski <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 9:57:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Exporting from SignPuddle
> Hi Jonathan,
> Import / Export needs revamped. I am working on SPML (SignPuddle Markup Language) which will cover all of the information available in SignPuddle. Perhaps you can review and comment when I have it ready.
> SignMail... Needs an update. I may add it to SWIS.
> BSW will be the standard for SignWriting data. SPML will use BSW hex data rather than BSWML or the build string.
> Keep up the good work on the Studio. Sorry to force updates with the standards. The ISWA 2010 is really worth it and it will be stable for a long time to come. BSW is really superior to the other formats and it is UTF-8 compatible.
> Here's a truncated BSW primer...
> Each character of BSW can be represented by a single ASCII token:
> # B = SignBox Marker
> # L = Left Lane SignBox Marker
> # R = Right Lane SignBox Marker
> # h = Hand Symbol
> # m = Movement Symbol
> # d = Dynamic Symbol
> # 1 = Head Symbol
> # 2 = Trunk Symbol
> # 3 = Limb Symbol
> # n = Number Character
> # Q = Sequence Marker
> # s = Sequence Symbol
> # P = Punctuation Symbol
> An entire sign text can be validated with a single regular expression:
> We can even evaluate a SignSpelling Sequence to determine if it is regular. Q[h*(md)*]+[123s]*
> A regular SignSpelling Sequence is espoused by Val as described in the SignSpelling Guidelines PDF. A regular SignSpelling Sequence places all of the location markers after the hands and movement. C