[sw-l] Dissertation by Sarah Pearson

[Trevor Jenkins]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Valerie Sutton <sutton at signwriting.org> wrote:

> ... both the Stokoe system and Don Newkirk's system do not portray the
> pictorial nature of signs...

There's also HamNoSys which I'd say is similar to those though closer to
actual signs than Stokoe ever could be. (Also has no bias towards ASL
either.) My previous experience of 30 years as a software engineer taught
me how to read and retain arcane formal notations even after years of
non-use --- but Stokoe and HamNoSys leach from my memory just hours after
intense study of them.

> ... because it (SignWriting) connects with the visual nature of signed
> languages ... that is why Trevor is able to follow along, even if he has
> not studied SignWriting deeply.

For my IT glossary the tutor hinted that if I was to use a notation then
they'd prefer HamNoSys. :-( But I'd already decided on the re-use idea so
stuck with Stokoe. I'm willing to expend time and effort learning
SignWriting because of the ease with which it can be written -- there are
not so many squiggles. Its ideogramatic nature is the real strength of
SignWriting (for me anyway); probably appeals to Deaf people for the same
reason. Let's hope that SW becomes the IPA of sign language analysis.

Regards, Trevor

<>< Re: deemed!