|WikiProject Writing systems||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Deaf||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Wikipedia in American Sign Language proposed
Please see meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia American Sign Language 2. Thank you.--Pharos 21:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
ASCII typeable equivalent
"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 isn't my (ASCII-Stokoe notation), though it resembles it and may well be an improvement.
- It isn't Sutton's SignWriting.
- The Czech MUSSLAP site doesn't have any examples of a written notation, if they even use one.
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)
Other signed languages using Stokoe
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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2009 (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.