[sw-l] IMWA version 1.0 completed...

[Bill Reese]

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.  :-)

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.

Now I'm curious to see how a sign, like say ... "house", could be
italicised.  Is there examples?  From the days of  handwriting signs?

The CDRom of SignWriting Website 2002 making it to South Korea - now
there's a place I didn't imagine it would go.

Kick back and have a cold one, Val!  :-)
Enjoy your R&R!  :-)

Bill

Valerie Sutton wrote:

> SignWriting List
> August 22, 2004
>
> Bill Reese wrote:
>
>     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?
>
>     For instance, italics are used in dictionaries to denote different
>     subjects or categories.  Let's say we have a word elevator, and
>     it's labeled U.S., while the synonymous lift, is labeled Brit.
>     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 topic, and topic 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?"
>
>
> Hello Everyone, and Bill!
> Thanks for this message. And I am glad you survived the hurricane,
> which just missed you in Tampa, Florida!
>
> 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...
>
> 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...
>
> 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...
>
> 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!
>
> 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!
>
> Val ;-)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20040822/97df6ccd/attachment.htm>