Request for Research Data

Sun Apr 16 01:49:09 UTC 2006

Hi Stuart,

I disagree that the ASL sign for "deaf" is simple to write.  There are 
several varying standards to use when writing it and there are issues 
with sorting.

Deaf in ASL

deaf by oralists.  Just kidding.  But it's amazing what facial 
expression can do.

Facial touching is very important, especially when sorting.  Let's 
indicate the first point of contact with a head location touch symbol.  
We'll take out the facial expression for a cleaner picture.

However, the location marker already denotes a touch, so let's remove 
the first contact symbol.

And we could just use contact locations without the contact symbol.

Even more complicated in the SignSpelling Sequence for each?  Do we ever 
need to identify the motion?

I think all of these spellings ideas are being used somewhere in the 
world.  I think Val can tell you who does what.

I do not think "deaf" is a simple sign to write (or sort).. 

For what it's worth,
-Steve

Stuart Thiessen wrote:
> Please note comments below ....
>
> Stuart
>
> On 4/15/06, Valerie Sutton <sutton at signwriting.org> wrote:
>   
>> SignWriting List
>> April 15, 2006
>>
>> Stuart Thiessen wrote:
>>     
>>> I am doing some research related to SignWriting for my MA degree and I
>>> am wondering if any of you would be willing to help me out with
>>> gathering some data. Part of what I want to do is study the way that
>>> we compose and decompose SW to represent specific signs.
>>>
>>> 5 signs: easy to write in SW.
>>>       
>> Hello Stuart!
>> Great to hear from you again...Your Master's Degree thesis sounds
>> really interesting...
>>
>> What is easy and what is hard, usually depends on a signwriter's
>> skill...there are different perspectives...is this from the student's
>> point of view? Or from a skilled signer's point of view?
>>     
>
> I am looking for the user's point of view. Obviously, this will differ
> from individual to individual based on their experience both with the
> sign language itself and SW.
>
>   
>> When you ask "easy to write?"
>>
>> do you mean the physical issues of writing by hand versus computer?
>>
>> or do you mean what is easy to read? (no physical writing involved)
>> just what is clear to read instantaneously?
>>
>> or do you mean what is clean in the invention, with no exceptions, so
>> it is easy to write because the writer has easy and consistent rules
>> to follow?
>>     
>
> Thank you for the question for clarification. I am not really looking
> for "simple" signs. I am looking for signs which are easily written
> because it is clear from the rules how to write it. For example, the
> ASL sign DEAF is an easy sign because the rules are very clear on how
> to write that particular sign. It is unlikely that we would differ ...
> much ... in how we write that sign. Preferably the 5 example easy
> signs should at least have some contact and/or movement involved in
> the sign. The signs themselves may be very complex, but the way to
> write it is clearly defined for the writer.
>
> The other 20 example signs I am asking for involve more complexity in
> how we would write it. It may be an issue of the rules being unclear
> or an issue of the number of symbols or the placement of symbols in
> order to transcribe that sign.  I am assuming that these particular
> signs will likely come up only in actual usage rather than dictionary
> forms. For example, AIRPLANE-FLYING as a classifier is probably a
> pretty easy sign to write, but to write AIRPLANE-LANDING might be a
> little less easy. Or AIRPLANE-FLYING-OVER-LAND is probably more
> difficult than AIRPLANE-FLYING. (I haven't had a chance to see if
> these are in the ASL SignPuddle or not, but if they are not, I will
> add them on Monday so you can see what I mean.)
>
> I realize some of this I could do through a check of the SignPuddles,
> but I am also interested in seeing what the users consider to be
> difficult signs. Perhaps I might not see it as difficult but someone
> else might feel that way. I still would like to see that perspective.
> That perspective is something I wouldn't get if I just went through
> the dictionaries myself.
>
> If you would rather just send me a page or so of SW text that you have
> already written with some signs circled to let me know which ones were
> challenging and which ones were not, that is fine also. The more data
> I can get, the better for my research.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stuart
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------
> Stuart Thiessen
> Des Moines, IA
>
>
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20060415/eba270ba/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2029 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20060415/eba270ba/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-1.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2015 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20060415/eba270ba/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-2.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2023 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20060415/eba270ba/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-3.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1867 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20060415/eba270ba/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-4.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1710 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20060415/eba270ba/attachment-0004.jpg>