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

[Valerie Sutton]

SignWriting List
April 7, 2005

Hello Everyone, Stuart and Kimberley, and Stephen!
OK. The vote is to leave them in...but just realize that when you want
to search for signs by choosing a Sign-Symbol and searching for all the
signs with that symbol...that kind of search...can only work on those
signs that are not graphics only...So at the moment, searching by going
to the Dictionary Editors area, and typing a letter and then searching,
gives you a great list of signs to look through...Val ;-)

PS. You are absolutely right about pronounciations being different, but
spellings become standardized anyway...that is the way English is
too...In Boston some people say BATH like people do in Great Britain,
but in other parts of the country they change the A sound, but we don't
spell the word BATH any differently just because of the different
pronunciation...


On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:55 AM, Stuart Thiessen wrote:

> 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 ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>