<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/3/13 7:16 AM, Charles Butler
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1372853817.71380.YahooMailNeo@web163405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff;
font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14pt"><span>If
it acts like a noun, signs like a noun, it's a noun. </span></div>
</blockquote>
Hi Charles, I agree. Nouns, verbs, ... for Parts of Speech.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1372853817.71380.YahooMailNeo@web163405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff;
font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14pt">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 19px; font-family:
verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: transparent;
font-style: normal; "><span>The term "classifier" is a term I
don't see listed yet.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I was wondering about that. <br>
* Should classifier be added to the list?<br>
* Is a classifier only part of a sign?<br>
* Can classifier fall under another part of speech, such as noun or
pronoun?<br>
<br>
-------------------------<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/2/13 9:41 AM, Adam Frost wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EC284CA7-CC06-4A52-8930-2C761BC4185E@gmail.com"
type="cite">I think that would be a very good idea for all of the
categories to be able to select a subcategory to say specifically
what type of verb, noun, etc. </blockquote>
Hi Adam,<br>
<br>
I'm torn by simplicity & usability versus flexible & exact.<br>
<br>
I'm leaning towards a static list of 9 parts of speech. I imagine a
use case of searching for a verb with a specific handshape.
Additionally, a custom tree to define parts of speech for each sign
language would be a translation nightmare.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EC284CA7-CC06-4A52-8930-2C761BC4185E@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is might be good to have test and/or student for SignPuddle because it is so open and free. I also think it might be good to have an "edited" labeling so that people can know which ones have been established as the proper or "correct" spellings that has been accepted.</pre>
</blockquote>
Good point. Maybe have the lexicon usage as:<br>
<br>
archaic : sign that is no longer fashionable, but is dated.<br>
formal : sign whose use is typically restricted to polite,
ceremonious, non-casual contexts.<br>
colloquial : sign whose use is typically restricted to casual,
non-ceremonious conversations.<br>
student: sign entered by student<br>
<br>
Then add a quality marker such as:<br>
Excellent<br>
Acceptable<br>
Bad<br>
Not evaluated<br>
<br>
-------------------------<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/3/13 3:02 AM, maria galea wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAPxa8bXF58UwxnNbuJfkNGH3bT2gFR97KXa_b5h1KNJqcXdV7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Steve, why don't you send the original email to the sign
linguist email list for consultation </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Hi Maria, interesting idea. I will write to the sign linguist
today.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAPxa8bXF58UwxnNbuJfkNGH3bT2gFR97KXa_b5h1KNJqcXdV7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Adam Schembri had taken the German
Puddle Dictionary as an example and noticed that there are
more than one entries for a lexeme - and in this aspect i
think he was right.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
He is most certainly right. I am tempted to implement part of the
Lexical Markup Framework, but it is just wishful thinking on my
part.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_Markup_Framework">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_Markup_Framework</a><br>
<br>
Many of these issues can be addressed when we start the Wiktionary
projects.<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------------------<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/2/13 8:01 AM, Jonathan Duncan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51D2CF0D.7040701@yahoo.ca" type="cite"> Will
you be creating one database for all the puddles? Or one per
puddle?<br>
<br>
Also when you finish this discussion, I would like to look over
your proposed database schema, so I can give my 2 cents worth, if
you are open to that. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi Jonathan, I will create one database for all the puddles. The
database is part of the SignWriting Icon Server. You can see the
current design that supports the v1 API on GitHub. I will let you
know when I update the design following this discussion.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Slevinski/swis/blob/master/db_init.php">https://github.com/Slevinski/swis/blob/master/db_init.php</a><br>
<br>
-------------------------<br>
<br>
The other topic I didn't address was regional / dialects. It would
probably be a good idea. Each sign language could have its own list
of language divisions. It would be useful for searching. <br>
<br>
Thanks for all the feedback and ideas.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
-Steve<br>
</body>
</html>