[sw-l] Guidelines for Dictionary Editors ;-)

[Charles Butler]

I would agree here, and the publishers of "Signs of Sexual Behavior" put out by Rochester Institute of Technology agree.  It is sometimes very difficult to get sexually related signs, particularly dealing with "private" human functions, though interestingly enough, the very fact is well known that, at least in the U.S., the Deaf are much less "squeamish" about being blunt about sexual behavior and body parts than the hearing "Victorian era" society .

"James Shepard-Kegl, Esq." <kegl at MAINE.RR.COM> wrote:
Sexual signs are a vital part of language and apply to human activity. For
example, imagine translating an AIDS awareness manual into a sign language
without using appropriate signs. Profanity arguably has no redeeming social
virtue, but signs relating to human sexuality are generally worth knowing
and certainly belong in any respectable dictionary.

-- James Shepard-Kegl






on 10/18/04 5:27 PM, Valerie Sutton at sutton at signwriting.org wrote:

> SignWriting List
> October 18, 2004
>
> Sandy Fleming wrote:
>> I'm sure there are plenty of nice signs we could still keep on entering
>> meanwhile if Stephen doesn't have time to do this at the moment! :)
>
> Ha! Yes. You are right. I do not want to ask Stephen to program any
> kind of voting system. It doesn't seem friendly, and it becomes hard to
> manage...In fact, I vote against a voting system! smile...
>
> And ratings for dictionary entries gets confusing, because the kids
> find a way to look anyway - ha!
>
> So no extra programming is needed, when it comes to Editor's Guidelines.
>
> I think it is best that in time, the Editors of one country talk
> privately to decide on guidelines for deleting signs and renaming signs
> within their own language...
>
> Meanwhile, everyone is welcome to add signs...
>
> For me, regarding the ASL online dictionary, I would suggest that we
> avoid sexual signs and swear-words...
>
> Does anyone agree with me? There are at least 50,000 signs you can
> still enter, that are not in those categories!
>
> Val ;-)
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20041019/66495604/attachment.htm>