The writing systems, not exactly, but machine conversion would for sure be possible (I think).
Mark
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:56:59 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Shane Gilchrist Ó hEorpa (shane.gilchrist.oheorpa@francismaginn.org) [050129 01:38]:
David Gerard:
Shane Gilchrist Ó hEorpa (shane.gilchrist.oheorpa@francismaginn.org) [050128 09:43]:
- There are 3 "sign-writing" systems out there - Sutton Writing System,
Stokoe Notation System and HamNoSys (Hamburg Notation System) but it is
felt
that the Sutton one will become the most popular as its simple to use
and
easy to use - whereas Stokoe and Hamnosys are more used by academics
(deeper
note-keeping really)
Can they be machine translated with usable accuracy? (Even as much as Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese?) That would help a *lot*!
(by machine) from English to the Sutton SignWriting - yeah - but from SignWriting to English, I don't think so. It will take us a while before we can reach an agreement on this.
I meant between each other - Simplified and Traditional Chinese are *mostly* a one-to-one correspondence between characters (with a few dodgy bits). Do the three sign systems have a 1-1 or mostly 1-1 correspondence?
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l