From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Dec 03 04:54:24 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:54:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GqqqU-0008SN-QW for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:53:29 -0800 Received: from imo-d22.mx.aol.com ([205.188.144.208]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GqqqN-0008SB-0D for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:53:23 -0800 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-d22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id d.9e.5ecdc7cb (32913) for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2006 07:53:09 -0500 (EST) From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Message-ID: <9e.5ecdc7cb.32a422b3@wmconnect.com> Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 07:53:07 EST Subject: [lojban] sign language in Lojban To: lojban-list@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9e.5ecdc7cb.32a422b3_boundary" X-Mailer: 6.0 for Windows XP sub 11501 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-archive-position: 13296 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_9e.5ecdc7cb.32a422b3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/3/2006 4:22:19 AM Central Standard Time, lojbab via ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes: > The real test might be if someone tries to express all of the features > and assumptions of sign language into Lojban. This was something that > came up once (I'm assuming it wasn't you - the person, whose name I > can't remember, but s/he was especially interested written > transcriptions of sign language, I think based on choreography notation > - seemed to think Lojban could meet the challenge, if in no other way by > coming up with verbal representations of written sign language). You > may be in a better position to evaluate, having examined sign language > linguistically. > If anyone knows about this, please post it. I'm very interested in both writing sign languages and signing spoken languages. stevo --part1_9e.5ecdc7cb.32a422b3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 12/3/2006 4:22:19 AM Cent= ral Standard Time, lojbab via ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:


The real test might be if s= omeone tries to express all of the features=20
and assumptions of sign language into Lojban.  This was something t= hat=20
came up once (I'm assuming it wasn't you - the person, whose name I=20
can't remember, but s/he was especially interested written=20
transcriptions of sign language, I think based on choreography notation=20
- seemed to think Lojban could meet the challenge, if in no other way by= =20
coming up with verbal representations of written sign language).  Y= ou=20
may be in a better position to evaluate, having examined sign language=20
linguistically.


If anyone knows about this, please post it.  I'm very interested in= both writing sign languages and signing spoken languages.

stevo --part1_9e.5ecdc7cb.32a422b3_boundary-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.