common criticisms of signwriting?
sandy at FLEIMIN.DEMON.CO.UK
Sun Nov 15 11:02:32 UTC 2009
I see what you mean.
I meant to say that, since I only need about 50 characters, I only have
to use the 26 lowercase and uppercase letters of the Latin alphabet as
used in English (and I use the usual punctuation marks for punctuation,
as nearly as possible).
This is merely to avoid having to download a special font. I do think
having a special font, designed with the graphical nature of sign
languages in mind, is a much better solution.
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 11:52 +0100, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> I am still confused.. ASCII consists of 128 characters and 33 are non
> printable, they include the numbers and other special characters like
> the @#$%&*()_=- ...The non printable characters are effectively
> obsoliete .. Indeed, the upper case and lower case characters are in
> there.. I hear you when you say characters can be given another
> meaning, but ASCII is a subset of the Latin script and it is archaic
> at best now that everyone has more or less adopted Unicode. Do you
> really mean ASCII ?
> 2009/11/15 Sandy Fleming <sandy at fleimin.demon.co.uk>
> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Theoretically I agree, symbols can be divorced from their
> > meaning.. However, it would create utter confusion by people
> who are
> > used for the characters in a script to have a relation that
> is well
> > defined to sounds. They will try to pronounce it... only to
> learn that
> > they are not used in that way anymore.. It is the same with
> > standardised transliteration from one script to another..
> The sound
> > implied is no longer there. This makes no difference if it
> is your
> > sound values that are mapped.. and indeed it is a foreign
> > that is represented so it is ok, the sounds are however
> still mapped
> > to one sounding system.
> I agree with that, and I wouldn't want to advocate any
> particular way of
> writing at too early a stage. Do we want to use the findings
> of modern
> linguistics to simplify SignWriting (especially if we can
> reduce the
> size of the ISWA dramatically) or devise something completely
> I don't know what's best, but I do think that one or the other
> happen as people become more aware of findings in linguistics,
> especially with respect to sign language universals.
> Note that when I talk about "simplifying SignWriting" I don't
> mean using
> shorthand. I mean simplifying it in such a way that
> significant to sign language execution isn't lost.
> > One immediate problem is that SignWriting illustrates well
> > complicated it is .. I wonder if there are enough characters
> in the
> > alphabetic scripts to represent sign languages and, if it
> can be done
> > in a universal way. It is however not the kind of research I
> > appealing as my gut feeling says that it will not work.
> I don't think SignWriting does illustrate the complexity of
> the problem,
> because SignWriting is more complex than it needs to be.
> To lay my cards on the table, I've been devising and working
> with an
> ASCII-based system and a similar specially-designed font
> (hence my long
> absence!) and I don't find any pressing need for more than
> about 50
> characters. This system is written linearly. I find I can
> write stuff in
> BSL with the ASCII character set and a few months later I can
> still read
> I'm now trying to decide whether it's best to stick with the
> version of the script or whether it would be better to just
> try to
> reduce the ISWA and stick with SignWriting.
> I don't know if anybody remembers that I did submit a text in
> SignWriting" to the list a long time ago, but it wasn't well
> received :)
> Sandy Fleming
SW-L SignWriting List
SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
List Archives and Help
Change Email Settings
More information about the Sw-l