icemandeaf at GMAIL.COM
Wed Aug 23 15:14:07 UTC 2006
I am sorry if it seemed I was saying it was inconsistant. I was mearly saying it seemed there was one. Thanks for the clearification. It makes so much sence now. I knew there had to be a reason, but I just wasn't seeing it, so I had to ask. :-)
From: "Valerie Sutton" <signwriting at MAC.COM>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:31:48
To:sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
Subject: Re: [sw-l] Symbol consistancy?
Hello Ingvild -
My goodness. This is not a glitch! I am fully aware of this and would
not change it. The choice has to do with software limitations, so I
was consistent completely within the two groups of handshapes...there
are two groups of hands...those with square bases and those that are
C and Angled and those two groups are completely consistent within
their own rules...all of them need 10 palm facings, but since I could
only use 6 of those 10 palm facings, I had to choose which ones were
used more and the choice I made is more consistent with usage...But
technically you can just flop the C-hand or angle-hand if you want
one of the other 10 palm facings...and Stefan and Steve wrote their
books based on the some of the other 10 palm facings...But I feel the
C hand flopped, which is one of the 10 palm facings, looks weird and
is not used as much when we write by hand, so I chose to have it
going into the center of the body as the more used of the 10 palm
So I guess writing by hand is the only solution...there will never be
a computer program that people are happy with...why? because it is
very costly to develop software and machines are just dumb
machines...but the writing system itself is so flexible by hand that
it is sad that computer issues always have to take our time...as it
is, I am barely able to even add a new symbol into the IMWA...just
doing the 96 positions on the 6-palm facing grid is exhausting...if
we extended it to 10 palm facings it would be what? 160 positions for
each symbol? did I count that right?
so use the flop button everyone!
On Aug 23, 2006, at 7:13 AM, Ingvild Roald wrote:
> Have to agree with Adam - but then, working by yourself as Val is
> doing, and knowing what you are doing, you do miss those things
> easily. As Val just told me: everyone needs an editor - and we on
> the list are hers. This tremendous job with all the symbols - not
> strange that there are some glitches,
>> From: "Charles Butler" <chazzer3332000 at YAHOO.COM>
>> Reply-To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>> To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>> Subject: Re: [sw-l] Symbol consistancy?
>> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
>> Now I understand what Adam is talking about. The third and sixth
>> column are inconsistent on this handshape as the index finger
>> should be on the left of the lower c handshape to be consistent
>> with the index finger for the "1" handshape and the "D" handshape.
>> Adam Frost <adam at frostvillage.com> wrote:
>> I think I was a little vague with words because I am talking
>> about the next level of order. Since I am now at a desktop
>> computer, I can sceen copy what I meant.
>> This screen shot from SignText first shows the set of symbols
>> that I was refering to, and the second is the base symbol that I
>> was compareing. Notice that the third and sixth columns are
>> ordered differently.
>> On 8/22/06, Valerie Sutton <signwriting at mac.com > wrote:
>> SignWriting List
>> August 22, 2006
>> Adam Frost wrote:
>> > I was doing some symbol work (for my website) and I noticed that
>> > some symbols aren't ordered consistantly. The one that I caught was
>> > 01-01-003-01-03 compared to 01-01-001-01-03. I went to SignText and
>> > it looks as if 01-01-004, 01-01-005, and 01-01-006 have the same
>> > difference. Is this supposed to be different?
>> Hello Adam!
>> Thanks for this message. Attached is a screen capture of the symbols
>> you mention and they correct and consistent. Is it possible that your
>> browser's cache is overloaded and needs to be cleared? yesterday I
>> received a phone call from someone who said that the symbols looked
>> weird in Firefox and when she cleared the cache and cleared the
>> history in Firefox, presto, everything looked good again! So to test
>> this, try accessing the same symbols in another browser to see if
>> they look the same in the other browser...
>> Looking at the attached diagram, each index-finger handshape has a
>> different shape for the base of the handshape...circle for D hand,
>> open-C, oval, angle and so forth, make the handshapes different from
>> each other...
>> Does this help? Val ;-)
>> << INCONSISTENT.JPG >>
More information about the Sw-l