<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Val, yes, that's my hope, that the IMWA is even more useful to those
who do the dictionaries. I didn't mean to imply that you need to do
dictionaries now. :-)<br>
<br>
I'm thankful that hurricane Charlie did not hit here as it was
originally projected. When I see the devastation done by it, I may not
have had much left of my house.<br>
<br>
Now I'm curious to see how a sign, like say ... "house", could be
italicised. Is there examples? From the days of handwriting signs? <br>
<br>
The CDRom of SignWriting Website 2002 making it to South Korea - now
there's a place I didn't imagine it would go. <br>
<br>
Kick back and have a cold one, Val! :-)<br>
Enjoy your R&R! :-)<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
Valerie Sutton wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid4F22278C-F47D-11D8-B646-000A959F2614@signwriting.org">SignWriting
List
<br>
August 22, 2004
<br>
<br>
Bill Reese wrote:
<br>
<blockquote>If we would take the informational items that may be
included
in a definition, are all the items fully supported in just signing
alone or will there be, because writing is different than signing,
marks that are used just for the dictionary?
<br>
<br>
For instance, italics are used in dictionaries to denote different
subjects or categories. Let's say we have a word
<i><!-- Helvetica -->elevator,</i>
and it's labeled <i><!-- Helvetica -->U.S.,
</i>while the synonymous
<i><!-- Helvetica -->lift,
</i>is labeled
<i><!-- Helvetica -->Brit.
</i>Notice that in my use of the italics in the
preceeding sentence, it helped to define the subjects and their
"Locality Label" category. Would the use of italics in this manner be
satisfied with the sign for
<i><!-- Helvetica -->topic,</i>
and
<i><!-- Helvetica -->topic</i> would
be used that way in the definition, or is there an actual way to make
Signwriting italic? Of course, that begs the question; "How do other
character-based writing systems approach this idea?"
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hello Everyone, and Bill!
<br>
Thanks for this message. And I am glad you survived the hurricane,
which just missed you in Tampa, Florida!
<br>
<br>
The IMWA are just symbols. Like the Roman Alphabet is just a group of
symbols. Just as the Roman Alphabet can be italicized, SignWriting
symbols can be italicized too in TrueType fonts....italicized
automatically...I can show you an example later with our
Fingerspelling True Type fonts.....You can write the SignWriting
symbols in Bold, Italics, Underlined, Outlined etc...just by the mere
fact that it is TrueType...
<br>
<br>
So that is not the point of the IMWA...it is not a typeface, or a type
style, or a method of inputting the symbols. It is the actual symbols
themselves...symbols that never existed before for hundreds of
handshapes that are rarely used in foreign signed languages...and all
of those can be italicized later, if you wish, as soon as the TrueType
fonts are created for those symbols...
<br>
<br>
Regarding how dictionaries are designed...Each dictionary publisher or
editor has to make their choices as to how to show the details you
mention...but once again, from my perspective, I am not the dictionary
editor...I just created the symbols and from there each language needs
to hone the IMWA down to the specific symbols they need to write their
specific language...
<br>
<br>
It is true that when I create a SignBank, then I am taking on the hat
of a dictionary editor...but that is a future job. Right now I just
completed a marathon race, called IMWA 1.0, with 25,125 GIFs, and that
is enough for today - ha!
<br>
<br>
By the way, Bill...a publisher in South Korea just ordered a copy of
your SignWriting Web Sites 2002 CD Rom for their library in Soeul,
South Korea! I will send you the particulars later, for your
records...Thank you for that wonderful product!
<br>
<br>
Val ;-)
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>