Signed languages are completely independent of spoken languages. American Sign Language does not directly correspond in grammar, vocabulary, or syntax to spoken or written American English, so watching an article in ASL would be nothing like listening to it spoken.
Mark
On 08/09/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
HHamilto@doe.k12.ga.us wrote:
I am writing to request the establishment of an American Sign Language-English bilingual Wikipedia. This will contain the written word versions of articles (Englsih) and American Sign Language versions via video. We have a dozen users ready to start building this powerful resource for deaf users and will be recruiting more.
I'm a bit confused… What real benefit would there be for a hearing-impaired person watching a video of an article being signed instead of them reading it? I'm not being sarcastic - I'm genuinely ignorant on how sign language is processed in the brain. Is the difference similar to watching TV vs reading a book? One act is mostly passive (watching) and one is mostly active (reading). If that is the case, then this idea makes sense. But if there really is not much benefit between watching an article get signed vs reading the article, then this is just a needless gimmick.
There is no software to support such a thing at present.
Does anybody know if there is current software that can do this automatically?
-- mav
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l