<!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,<br>
<br>
I'm just chiming in here a little bit to reinforce the idea of a
dictionary with a regular spelling and then the detailed pronunciation
of it. I'm reminded of the special symbols you made a while back that
were designed specifically to aid in that. What would be a
prototypical dictionary entry in Signwriting that would be similar to a
spoken language one? For instance, the following is an entry in an
english dictionary for "pronunciation." How could this be done in
SignWriting?<br>
<br>
Main Entry: <b>pro·nun·ci·a·tion</b> <br>
Pronunciation: <tt>pr&-"n&n(t)-sE-'A-sh&n <i>also </i>÷-"naun(t)-</tt><br>
Function: <i>noun</i><br>
Etymology: Middle English <i>pronunciacion, </i>from Middle French <i>prononciation,
</i>from Latin <i>pronuntiation-, pronuntiatio, </i>from <i>pronuntiare</i><br>
<b>:</b> the act or manner of pronouncing something<br>
- <b>pro·nun·ci·a·tion·al</b> /<tt>-shn&l, -sh&-n<sup>&</sup>l</tt>/
<i>adjective</i><br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
<br>
Valerie Sutton wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid444D8195-B2A1-488F-8327-816C3D8FD394@signwriting.org">SignWriting
List
<br>
June 19, 2005
<br>
<br>
Dear SW List -
<br>
I think our last series of messages about the sign for WALLET in ASL,
hightlights an important issue regarding the development of the
International Movement Writing Alphabet (the IMWA). Steve has given us
an enormous gift in SignMaker...the use of the IMWA before it is
finished. I am adding new symbols to the IMWA while you are using it.
The new symbols are not really new. They are symbols that are used
right now, in different countries, or in older documents. But they are
not in the IMWA yet.
<br>
<br>
To be able to use the IMWA before it is finished is amazing...for me
too...because some of these symbols have been used without
documentation, and so I am chasing to catch up with creating lessons
for symbols that some of you have never seen! smile...And meanwhile I
have more symbols to add...so it is hard for me to give you the proper
textbook instruction you deserve. But it will come in time...that is
why I hope you will continue to ask questions on the SW List...it
helps me too, because it shows me what symbols are hard to learn...
<br>
<br>
So Steve's gift to us...the use of the IMWA in a computer program...is
stimulating a faster resolution to the different ways of writing in 30
countries, and giving us a forum to discuss it all...so we are
fortunate indeed.
<br>
<br>
Did you know, for example, in spoken languages that use the Roman
alphabet, that some languages use more alphabetic symbols than others?
For example, the English alphabet uses 26 letters (symbols). But in
Danish, they use three more...so they have 29...So people using each
spoken language, years ago, had to determine what letters (symbols)
they needed to write their specific spoken language. I call that a
language-specific symbolset. The International Phonetic Alphabet (the
IPA) is not language-specific. It is more general and is an attempt to
be language-neutral, attempting to write exact sounds rather than
specific languages (I realize this is a simplification, but generally
I believe that was the idea behind the IPA).
<br>
<br>
People may have the mis-impression, that they need to learn EVERY
symbol in the IMWA. But that would not be realistic, nor would it be
necessary. Each signed language only uses SOME of the symbols in the
IMWA. When people create signs in SignMaker, they choose the symbols
they need, and after awhile, they know where those specific symbols
are located. They are really writing with a smaller symbolset, even
though they are accessing the entire IMWA through SignMaker. That
smaller subset of symbols is the beginning of a language-specific
symbolset.
<br>
<br>
Steve added a new feature to SignPuddle recently, called Search by
Symbol Frequency. This is an excellent feature, because once you have
around 500 signs in your dictionary, when you go to the area called
Symbol Frequency, you can see immediately which handshapes were used
in your 500 signs. As your dictionary builds, the Symbol Frequency
section gives us the information we will need later, to pin down the
language-specific symbolset for your Sign Language.
<br>
<br>
So first, I want you to know that I feel your pain...smile...I know
you all have a hard job, trying to determine which symbols you need to
write with, from such a large group of symbols in the IMWA. Future
generations will not be in the pioneering position you are in today,
but I hope you can enjoy the process like an adventure. You can telll
your grandchildren about it - ha!
<br>
<br>
And second, the issue of phonetic and phonemic, or if you wish to call
them cheretic and cheremic...whatever term is used...We can choose to
write a sign in a very detailed way (phonetic) or a more simiplified
way (phonemic), and neither are wrong or right...both have their
place. The detailed spellings are more for research and for an
exact-pronunciation-guide, and the simplified spellings are more for
children, beginners, and everyday documents for reading pleasure. We
do not read novels, in the English language, in the IPA...that would
not be for pleasure, because it is too much detail.
<br>
<br>
So I suggest that in our dictionary entries, later, when we have true
published dictionaries, that we include both the simplified and
detailed spelling for each sign, so that people have a pronunciation-
guide, but also a way to write quickly that others read quickly. That
would be similar to spoken language dictionaries which include both
too.
<br>
<br>
Right now in SignPuddle we are learning the difference between what is
detailed, and what is acceptable as simplified...so it will take a
little time to determine this...but this is what I foresee for the
future of dictionaries in SignWriting.
<br>
<br>
What are your thoughts about this?
<br>
<br>
Val ;-)
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>