[sw-l] using SignWriting to index Stokoe's dictionary

[Stuart Thiessen]

I second Kimberley's vote. Let's leave them in. We will get them
converted over.  I have already found some interesting differences
between spellings in the dictionary and the way we sign it here in
Iowa. For example, WHO.  If you look at the SWJava version and my
version, you will notice a minor difference of hand orientation.  What
is interesting is that when I showed Philip the SWJava version, he
mentally "converted" it to our way of signing it even though the
spelling was different than what we signed.  I thought that was very
interesting. That shows that, in some cases, we may find perhaps that
some spellings may become fixed but the "pronunciation" may still vary
from the actual printed version.  Who knows?

Anyhow, I am changing my SignPuddle usage pattern so that whenever I am
in the SignPuddle searching for signs, if I find a graphic only sign
that I want to use, then I take the time to re-enter it and then use
it.

Thanks,

Stuart

On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:31 AM, Kimberley A. Shaw wrote:

>> Stephen and I
>> were talking about, today, maybe throwing out all the old graphics
>> signs, and just leaving the 300 or so that can really be
>> sign-searched...if we do that, we have a big job to re-enter all those
>> 3100 signs again, but at least people like yourself could find
>> everything you need then...and there will be no more frustrations...
>
> NoNoNoNoNo please do not do that!
> Would it be too labor-intensive to do a one-at-a-time rolling update
> from
> old-graphic to new-format instead?
> Am now cut-&-pasting together my own ASL-English dictionary. Can you
> tell
> that I'm a little worried about keeping up with my ASL now that my
> class
> is about to go on a two-month break??
> Best,
> Kim
>>
>>
>> Val ;-)
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>