AW: Design for SignPuddle 3: parts-of-speech and morphology of sign language
Stephen E Slevinski Jr
slevin at SIGNPUDDLE.NET
Thu Dec 12 16:52:21 UTC 2013
On 12/12/13, 5:38 AM, Stefan Wöhrmann wrote:
> Well I haven´t got the time, the knowledge, the energy to work with
> more options as I do right now. I am happy that "find by word" with
> different options ...and find by symbol is possible,
> For my work at school there is nothing more needed -- as far as I can
> see now...
No worries. I'll be fixing up the current usage and adding some new
functionality. Basic usage will stay the same and not require
additional steps or knowledge.
The biggest change will be a status for each entry.
New entries are created as provisional. Editors can later mark the
entries as approved, nonstandard, or rejected.
This is needed to clean up the search results and have a measure of a
On 12/12/13, 9:57 AM, Valerie Sutton wrote:
> After reading these comments, it sounds like to me it is best not to
> include this feature of "morphology" in SignPuddle 3, when there may
> not be an equivalent in the sign language world that matches such a
> term and it will only confuse all of us - it actually could be a
> negative for the software.
I agree that there probably isn't a universal morphology list.
> There are so many other features in SignPuddle 3 that we need so
> badly...thank you for giving us those, Steve -
Hi Val, I understand there is a lot of pain. I'm trying to focus on
what needs done sooner rather than later. Thanks for your patience.
The initial database design is working but needs to be cleaned up. The
design choices have far reaching implications and require serious
On 12/11/13, 4:53 PM, Charles Butler wrote:
> My only comment is that I hope all dictionary entries don't require a
> linguist to actually put them in or to find them. I have been excited
> about SignWriting because it has allowed me to write what I actually
> sign, not describe it in a spoken language for a third party.
The dictionary is to help support writers of all kinds. The additional
information is not required, but an optional description.
> That will become an impossible burden to lexicographers.
Let's not think of it as a burden, but as a possibility.
> The burden becomes impossible, and is no longer useful to an actual
> user of SignWriting as a writing system, not a linguistic tool.
Yes, SignWriting is a writing system and will stay that way. The
linguistic additions are outside of the SignWriting script and not an
SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION
SignWriting List moderator
sutton at signwriting.org
Post Messages to the SignWriting List:
sw-l at listserv.valenciacollege.edu
SignWriting List Archives & Home Page
Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sw-l