Talk:Stokoe notation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Deaf (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deaf-related and Deaf culture. For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia in American Sign Language proposed[edit]

Please see meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia American Sign Language 2. Thank you.--Pharos 21:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

ASCII typeable equivalent[edit]

"There are also several proposals for typable ASCII equivalents; one of these is shown below. (For this system, Orientation symbols occur before the dez rather than being subscripted after it.)"

Which of those proposals is it?

It seems to have been added by User:Kwamikagami, who moved this article from Sign language 02:41, 29 October 2005. Is it his invention? If so, or especially if not, he should assign appropriate credit for it. --Thnidu (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just a convenience. We probably shouldn't have any ASCII equivalent at all. kwami (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I disagree. Keep it! and make it known. --Thnidu (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay. If and until Unicode covers this, the ad hoc substitutions aren't the best, as they aren't evenly supported, so maybe we should stick with ASCII for citing examples. kwami (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Other signed languages using Stokoe[edit]

The article gives the impression that Stokoe notation is only used for ASL whereas, at least, one other signed language community has used it. The BSL/English Dictionary project in the early 1990s used it in much the same way that the ASL/English Dictionary project did. However, for BSL enhancements needed to be made. This usage (plus any others) should be mentioned in the body of the article. Glimfeather (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the intro. kwami (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay so it's hidden but that specious the assertion about idosyncratic modifications needs to be justified and referenced. As I read the BSL/English Dictionary their changes were not idosyncratic but rather necessary because there are features of BSL that do not exist in ASL (or that Stokoe deliberately omitted because he thought they were unreal). Glimfeather (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "and only one" has been re-inserted into this article. It's a dubious claim. The HanNoSys team claim that there notation is also phonemic. Glimfeather (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
They may claim that, but it obviously isn't. Check out their site. Off course, any phonetic system may be used phonemically, but HamNoSys isn't inherently phonemic the way Stokoe is. If you change your phonological theory with HamNoSys, you just change orthographies. (As you would with SignWriting.) But if you change with Stokoe, you have a real problem with the script. That's been a problem with some researchers using it. Easy enough to test: You can write BSL in unmodified HamNoSys, but not in unmodified Stokoe, because HamNoSys covers all phonetic details you're likely to find, while Stokoe only covers what Stokoe took to be phonemic in ASL.
As for Stokoe being the first system [I deleted the duplicate comment below], that's just history. Just about any ref you pick up will mention that. kwami (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You've introduced a contradiction into WikiPedia. The article you link to for phonemic says that both SignWriting and Stokoe are examples of phonemic notation.
Corrected. Thanks for catching that. The article was in error. The SignWriting article gives at least one example of how the system is non-phonemic. kwami (talk)
As to first-ness ... then pick one of these references to support your assertion. Otherwise you're just spouting a personal opinion and that's not what WikiPedia is for. Glimfeather (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. kwami (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


In Goldilocks, BɑBɑz~ would seem to be an abbreviated version of story. Can anyone confirm? kwami (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about abreviated but that GIF file has been copied directly without attribution from the Signwriting web site. What's the WikiPedia policy on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There is attribution. It's linked directly to the site. (If you can find where they got it from, we can ref the text.) kwami (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This version may well be in current use. Many signs that I learned with repetition 40 years ago are often signed without repetition now. --Thnidu (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


I found it a bit annoying to see only “Unicode characters looking roughly similar” and “characters that only look correctly if you have the font installed”.

Could someone please add images to the article that will show exactly what the characters should look like.

Either by digitising/screenshotting the font, scanning the individual characters from a book, hand-drawing them with a drawing pad, or some other means.

Thanks! -- pne (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You'll get that if you install the font. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)