[sw-l] SignWriter - feature "gloss" input method

[Valerie Sutton]

SignWriting List
May 31, 2005

Before I go offline for the day, I just want to congratulate you,
Steve, on the new SignPuddle 2.0. It is really terrific! I hope some
of our List members will take a look and then give Steve some
feedback, on SignPuddle 2.0...If there is something you do not
understand or like, tell Steve so that it can become a program you
want to use...smile...

SignPuddle 2.0 beta test area
http://www.signpuddle.org/dictionary/community/puddle/Welcome.php

Have a great day everyone!

Val ;-)

------------------------


On May 31, 2005, at 3:06 PM, Steve Slevinski wrote:

> Hi Barbara,
>
> I used to be a proponent of glossing, but no longer.
>
> I didn't understand international concerns, but I'm learning.
> In theory, I support Unicode.  I still have testing to do. Each
> sign will have mutliple keywords and multi-lingual descriptions.
>
> Glossing has been removed from the SignPuddle 2.0 beta. Instead
> each sign is given a sequencial number starting with 1. The beta is
> usable, but the terms are confused.  Val and I are discussing all
> of these terms and ideas.  We don't agree on all of the terms, but
> we agree on the direction and we are having fun along the way.
> Here is a section about the ideas and terms we are discussing.
> This is a rough draft to explain my thinking.
>
> Drawing Sequence
> Each sign has an order in which the symbols were drawn in
> SignMaker.  In theory, this could be the same order used when
> drawing by hand.  Many start with the head when drawing for proper
> centering.
> Sort Sequence
> Create a Sign Spelling Sequence by clicking on the symbols
> displayed in the draw sequence.  The sort sequence uses the SSS id
> numbers of the symbols in the IMWA.  Read up on Sutton's
> SignSpelling Guildlines for an offical SignWriting document.  An
> example SSS id number would be 01-01-001-01-01-01, not to be
> confused with a Base Symbol which could have an SSS id number like
> 01-01-001-01.  The SSS id numbers lend themselves very well to
> sorting.
>
> Detailed Spelling Sequence
> After a dictionary grows to more than 200 signs, a simple sort
> sequence is not enough.  We now need to use a Detailed Spelling
> Sequence.  Detailed sorting uses additional symbols not found in
> the draw sequence.  New sections of the IMWA and additional
> SignWriting rules must be learned for correct detailed spelling
> sequences.
>
> Statistical Symbol Subsets (aka alphabets)
> Using the whole IMWA in SignMaker is possible, but a subset may be
> beneficial for beginners.  SignMaker will work will the whole IMWA
> or unique subsets based on usage.  Additionally, PDFs could be
> created for each signed languages.  These alphabets are not
> dictated or given to the deaf.  These alphabets are discovered by
> reflecting in the puddle.
>
> SignPuddle 2.0 is still in beta.  It could be used today and I may
> create an IMWA puddle to see how it scales.  But it does not use
> gloss.
>
> -Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Barbara Pennacchi wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On 31.05.05 11:56, Tomáš Klapka wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My idea is to add one more method of input, "gloss" input method.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not talking about signpuddle specifically, I'm talking about
>> the  concept of "glossing" signs in general.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but after so many years of working side by side with
>> sign  language researchers and teachers, my opinion about the (ab)
>> use of glosses  in almost any sign-related field is very very very
>> very low.
>>
>> I *do* really wish we'd all start weaning ourselves from these. I
>> do  really want do wean myself, at least (grin)
>>
>> Glosses do not solve the problem of "rebuilding" in one's own mind
>> a  specific sign made by someone else, in absence of visually-
>> supporting  material. Glosses tend to add more ambiguity. Glosses
>> do not help people  visualize the 4dimensionality of sign language.
>>
>> And how about the presence of multiple synonyms? Would glosses
>> such as  "DROP" "LET-IT-FALL" "ABANDON" point to the same or to
>> different signs?
>>
>> And how about using glosses from a strongly "gendered" language
>> such as  spanish, french or italian (which don't have the neutral
>> gender) for sign  language that tend instead to be genderless?
>>
>> Furthermore, in some cases, the use of glosses is suspected of
>> influencing  non-deaf people into translating sentences from their
>> own mono-dimensional  language into our 4dimensional language,
>> word by word, before actually  signing the sentence.... (I'm being
>> sarcastic here, folks)
>>
>> But this is only my opinion. And I'm having a real bad day here at
>> work so  forgive me for my bluntness. Nothing personal here, ok?
>>
>> (BTW: it bugs me that Sign Puddle forces me to give a gloss to
>> signs in  order to save 'em, but I know it is because of technical
>> reasons --  "Unicode, where the heck art thou?")
>>
>>
>
>