[Wiktionary-l] Spoken vs written languages

Gerard, you can find the message to which I was referring at the end of the present message. Please do not treat me as if I know nothing about the subject, because I certainly do. Many deaf people learn to speak and to read lips. I don't really think whether or not deaf people learn a spoken language is an issue regarding Wiktionary. But certainly, many deaf people DO learn spoken languages, even if you think (as you appear to) that spoken and written languages are completely distinct entities. Besides, it's absurd to state that written languages are not related to spoken languages. Written English is nothing more than a transcription of spoken English (in a standard dialect). As of yet there is no widely-used written language which does not correspond directly or nearly directly to a spoken or signed language. You say there are three different kinds of languages, spoken, written, and signed. This, too, is absurd! Written languages are always associated with a spoken language (or in some cases, a signed language). Thus, when we say "Finnish", we're referring to the language spoken by the majority of Finns, as well as the language written by the majority of Finns, because in the minds of all reasonable people they are a single entity. Do you think that if Korean kids had to learn to write Dutch-written-language in school rather than Korean-written-language, it would be just as easy? Obviously, it would not. This is because knowing spoken Korean makes it much easier to learn written Korean, and knowing spoken Dutch makes it easier to learn written Dutch, because there are many simple correspondences. Learning a different written language, however, is just as difficult as learning a different spoken language. But again, this isn't the main point. Please read the e-mail below: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> Date: 24-Aug-2005 03:06 Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Spell checking in MediaWiki To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org> Hi, That page states that the ways for writing signed languages are closer to Chinese characters than Latin script. This is completely incorrect. Please see below for my suggestion on signed languages. There are 4 main ways of writing signed languages: 1) With word-for-word glosses in a spoken language. For ASL or BSL this is usually English; for InSL it may be Hindi or another Indian language or English; for Chinese SL it will probably be Chinese. While this is suitable in most cases for writing whole sentences and recording syntax and grammar, it gives no specific information about what a sign looks like and thus is completely unsuitable. 2) Sutton SignWriting. This writing system is copyrighted and use of it is not free. However, it is currently the most widely used of any of the 3 main sign-writing systems today, at least by deaf people (researchers are more likely to use HamNoSys or Stokoe). It is more like Korean letters: each part of any given symbol says something specific about how to form the sign, but they are combined to form what may appear to the uninitiated to be a logographic sign, when in fact it is most certainly not. More information at http://www.omniglot.com/writing/signwriting.htm 3) HamNoSys. A very complex system that can be best compared with a "Narrow transcription" of a spoken language using the IPA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetic_transcription#Narrow_and_broad_transc… , it is used mostly by researchers. However, it's much easier to represent on computers than Sutton SignWriting. More information at http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/Projects/HamNoSys.html 4) Stokoe. Stokoe is actually, in a sense, the basis of HamNoSys. It is more equivalent to the Latin script than any of the other systems, in fact it borrows many letters from it. Its use is restricted mostly to researchers today. Some people accept the minor changes made by it by a BSL researcher, however any more drastic changes are usually considered to be separate systems. Suggestion: Use http://www.unm.edu/~grvsmth/signsynth/ -- data will be stored as a computer representation of Stokoe, but can be played back. Demo available at http://www.panix.com/~grvsmth/signsynth/ ... Although the native rendering for SignSynth is VRML (Virtual Reality Markup Language), I imagine it would be quite easy to convert automatically or even to make it render initially in a more widely-used format, such as some sort of video or animation format. This would limit the space that would be taken up by the storage of so many videos -- there are hundreds of signed languages on the planet today, and to store videos for each word in all of them (or even just the major ones and the 1000 most frequent words) would take up a lot of space. While it is obviously not perfect (look at the forehead... oh my is she ugly!), it's definitely good enough that someone could imitate it and their imitation would be the proper sign very accurately, and it's also good enough that anybody who can speak sign language (there are better terms than "speak", but they seem awkward to me) should be able to understand it well. Presumably, the developer of the software could be solicited for further cooperation. Mark On 24/08/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Lars Aronsson wrote: > > > >>Sabine Cretella wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>Well Lars, we are not so far away from making a different point >>>in that. It is one of the usages we have in mind with Ultimate >>>Wiktionary. Since there we will have words in all languages and >>>have these words in a relational database it is easy to "extract >>>an actual spellchecker" every now and then. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I keep hearing these promises, but "seeing is believing"! Have >>you started actual work on UW yet, or are you sitting idle while >>waiting for Wikidata to be released? Will there be an English >>free dictionary that can compete in size and quality with Aspell's >>current dictionary by the end of 2005? Or by the end of 2006? >> >> >> >Hoi, >Actual work on UW itself is underway. Here you can find the data desisgn >http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Wiktionary_data_design This >design is very much open for comments and I am happy to say that many >comments that were given have led to changes. I name but a few changes >that came about this way; Can sign languages be included - now they can, >Can attestations be included - now they can. > >As Ultimate Wiktionary is dependent on Wikidata, there is little option >for us but to wait untill it is ready. It is really important that >Wikidata is done well because it will not serve only Ultimate Wiktionary >but also Ultimate Wiktionary. > >When both Aspell and Ultimate Wiktionary are considered Free, it should >be possible for us to work together. Once we find this cooperation >possible, we could host the data currently included in Aspell in UW. In >return we would provide a publicly accessible website where it is easy >to add new words thay will end up in Aspell. Even when we do not >cooperate, there will be languages that currently do not have a >spellchecker. These spellcheckers I am particularly exited about because >this is where we will be able to add value. > >Without a massive infusion of data, it will be hard to predict when we >have as many words as Aspell does for languages where Aspell has a >dictionary. > >Then again, if we create a wordcount on the Wikipedia content, run it >against a spellchecker, the resulting list should be spelled correctly >and could be included in UW. Particularly for our biggest wikipedias and >the amount of topics covered, it should be a list that might be close to >the size of what Aspell has. We will also have a long list of words >missing in Aspell. We will however not get a spellchecker for British or >American in this way. > >Thanks, > GerardM. > > >Thanks, > GerardM >