<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>I think this has been discussed before - several years ago.<br><br>My thoughts:<br><br>Graphemes and morphemes belong to the same 'category': that of small units carrying meaning. <br><br>Glyphs are the writable results of merging one or more graphemes, so that the glyph for a certain handshape will also reveal a certain rotation (placement of long axis of hand) and a certain fill (rotation along this long axix). <br><br>The symbol for the back of the hand is black (fill), for the palm it is white (no fill), and so on.<br><br>But maybe there are conventions for use of these words in connection with Unicode, which would of course be more important than my private houghts ...<br><br>Ingvild
<br><br><div><hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:09:11 +0200<br>From: signwriting.maria@GMAIL.COM<br>Subject: Glyphs, graphemes or symbols? ISWA terminology<br>To: SW-L@LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU<br><br><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear all,<br>I'm trying to figure out which term to stick to when referring to the symbols of ISWA - any preferences and if so, why?<br></div>Thank you very much!<br>maria<br></div></div> </div></body>
</html>