AW: Design for SignPuddle 3: parts-of-speech and morphology of sign language

Fri Dec 13 00:54:21 UTC 2013

Hi again!
About parts of speech, I agree with Rachel that parts of speech for sign
languages are usually not so straightforward (like English). A sign may
sometimes become a verb or noun depending on its context. For instance in
LSM, the sign DOOR can be either nominal or verbal depending on its place
within a sentence: MAN-DOOR would mean 'the man opens the door' (where it
is verbal) whereas in DOOR-BREAK the same sign is nominal meaning 'the door
broke'...but it is good to have the option to list them I guess and leave
them empty at will..

yes Valerie I definitely see the value of SignPuddle as an editing program
for all, even beginners - I just thought it would be good if Puddle could
remain accessible to all, yet become less anonymous - for instance on the
internet there are millions of blogs and billions of blog-posts but they
are rarely anonymous - and in being more transparent has its advantages :)

Re the statuses:
* provisional
* approved
* nonstandard
* rejected

I think I understand Stefan's concern, because how can spellings be judged
when the orthography of a given sign language is not yet standardized. All
spellings are acceptable in the sense that they are all attempts towards
the representation of a sign in written form (irrespective of skill in SW).
 Rather than these statuses, could you mark the spellings with the statuses
of representation 01, representation 02, representation 03 etc of a given
sign, and somehow link these different spellings of the same sign (lexeme)
under one target sign.  This would make the count of the sign entries truly
sign/lexeme counts rather than a count of every spelling? ... once again
not sure this is possible, but just thought I'd share my thoughts about it
just the same,

regards,
maria

On 12 December 2013 21:52, Stefan Woehrmann <
stefanwoehrmann at gebaerdenschrift.de> wrote:

>  “The biggest change will be a status for each entry.
>
> * provisional
> * approved
> * nonstandard
> * rejected
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Steve
>
>
>
> – I am afraid that this will cause problems – who am I to judge things
> like these categories ...no – all I take care of as much as possible is to
> make sure that most entries should be written correctly .. I  do not stop
> to mention at any workshop or meeting that it is not the question of
> signing or signlanguage what I am interested in – as a SignWriting scribe –
> I am interested to write, whatever I see as a given signing – performance.
> That is the reason that it is so wonderfull to add several dialects or
> variations of a given sign/term ... Your new categories should be entered
> in private puddles – people may hire a staff or a group of a scientific
> comunity may want to think about this ...
>
>
>
> Just my idea
>
>
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> “The biggest change will be a status for each entry.
>
> * provisional
> * approved
> * nonstandard
> * rejected
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *Von:* SignWriting List: Read and Write Sign Languages [mailto:
> SW-L at LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU] *Im Auftrag von *Stephen E Slevinski Jr
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 12. Dezember 2013 17:52
> *An:* SW-L at LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: Design for SignPuddle 3: parts-of-speech and
> morphology of sign language
>
>
>
> 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...
>
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> 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.
> * provisional
> * approved
> * nonstandard
> * rejected
>
> 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
> dictionary's contents.
>
>
>  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
> consideration.
>
>  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.
>
>
> Hi Charles,
>
> 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
> integral part.
>
> Regards,
> -Steve
>  ________________________________________________
>
>  SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION
>
> Valerie Sutton SignWriting List moderator sutton at signwriting.org
>
> Post Messages to the SignWriting List: sw-l at listserv.valenciacollege.edu
>
> SignWriting List Archives & Home Page
> http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist
>
> Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages
> http://listserv.valenciacollege.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SW-L&A=1________________________________________________
>
>  SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION
>
> Valerie Sutton SignWriting List moderator sutton at signwriting.org
>
> Post Messages to the SignWriting List: sw-l at listserv.valenciacollege.edu
>
> SignWriting List Archives & Home Page
> http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist
>
> Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages
> http://listserv.valenciacollege.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SW-L&A=1
>
>

________________________________________________

SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION

Valerie Sutton
SignWriting List moderator
sutton at signwriting.org

Post Messages to the SignWriting List:
sw-l at listserv.valenciacollege.edu

SignWriting List Archives & Home Page
http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist

Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages
http://listserv.valenciacollege.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SW-L&A=1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20131213/a0ecb706/attachment.htm>