[sw-l] BSL Reading Test :)

[Charles Butler]

Omitting a movement may not be necessary if you adopt the shorthand written system (see gif).  It's certainly faster.



Sandy Fleming <sandy at FLEIMIN.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote:
Hi Stefan!

> Hi Sandy - perhaps you would like to rewrite 1,5,6 and 9 once again?

Oops! OK, see new gif :)

I write, and then copy useful signs from my writing onto a sheet, correcting
lots of errors. Then I use this sheet to enter signs into the dictionary,
and I'm _still_ correcting errors as I go! If anyone is concerned about
this, perhaps they should check the BSL dictionary for quality while it's
still small!

> smile - (I understand that your goal is to make the paper burn

Not exactly! I show BSL users here signs and sentences I've written, and
they like the idea of baing able to do it, but it looks complicated. Or I
show them the manual, but they don't believe it's anything _they_ could
learn. I don't think I'm going to be able to get anyone I know in "real
life" interested unless I can write a sentence up on a whiteboard or make a
few rough notes at a meeting just as quickly as anybody could in English!
Some signs are simple to execute but very "busy" to write. Even if I wrote
such signs fast, I think onlookers would be discouraged, imagining that this
is more of a circus trick than anything that could be taught to everybody.

> nevertheless it seems important to me to keep in line with the general
> spelling -rules ;-)

Yes, me too. However, this isn't changing any rules, it's just simplyfing by
omission. In Val's "SignSpelling Guidelines" document, she mentions
"simplified spelling for children" and "detailed spelling for researchers",
but I would suggest changing this to "simplified spelling for everyday use"
and "detailed spelling for researchers".

In the same document Val also talks of spelling signs in up to four
alternating "syllables" - Position+Movement+Position+Movement. She
recommends not writing the final "Movement" syllable unless it's necessary
to distinguish from other signs.

Val seems to mean omitting the fourth syllable, but what I'm suggesting is
that any final movement is a candidate for omission. So Val is saying:

P+M+P+M - deleted the final Movement if no ambiguity

but I'm saying to also delete the final movement in a sing with just P+M,
leaving just P.

So it's not really a change of rules, just a matter of degree.

It's a bit like the way dictionaries have pronumciation guides as well as
the usual spellings.

> (What do you think Tini? - I bet you have to smile at this comment - since
> we had lots of exchange of this kind- )

Oh dear, I'm reinventing the wheel :)

What was your conclusion from these exchanges? Just remember, it's not
science unless others can read your results and repeat the experiment!

Sandy


> ATTACHMENT part 2 image/gif name=invariants.gif

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20041020/d1d611ca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signsample.GIF
Type: image/gif
Size: 2550 bytes
Desc: signsample.GIF
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20041020/d1d611ca/attachment.gif>