Closed ocrasborn closed 6 years ago
@ocrasborn, just wondering, there seem to be a bunch of signs with the name pattern MOVE+ where the + is followed by the strong hand shape. (E.g., MOVE+5, MOVE+B, MOVE+O, .........) Similarly, the pattern AT+ also appears in the same way, AT+1, AT+3, ...... with the strong hand. Are these patterns related to anything else? Are these examples of the Blends Morphology? I found these patterns by accident, looking at the Lemma Group AT. Then found AT+1_curved, which has strong hand 1_curved and then seems to have the same phonology as MOVE+1_curved. Just wondering what these patterns are. Should there be a MOVE Lemma Group? The videos of WEEKEND-A and SATURDAY, SUNDAY-B help to understand this Issue. There aren't any videos for the AT or MOVE signs.
@ocrasborn, are there any additional fields you would like to have for the new Blends Simultaneous Morphology? You mention in the Weekend example that the hands from two different signs are used. Left Hand Sign, Right Hand Sign. Is any additional information needed? Is the ordering of the hands significant, or is it symmetric? SATURDAY and SUNDAY-B both have both hands the same. Could a motion or location etc. from a third sign become part of a Blend? Like if you'd put the SATURDAY + SUNDAY-B on top of your heart or your head?
For the current Simultaneous Morphology links, a plus sign is used to separate the sequence. Should a different symbol be used for Blends? (Or can the same abbreviation be used: SATURDAY + SUNDAY-B as a Blend display?)
I meant to close #224 instead of this one...
@ocrasborn, in the models.py file, there are two fields in the Gloss Model with the following code: blend = models.CharField(_("Blend of"), maxlength=100, null=True, blank=True) blendtf = models.NullBooleanField(("Blend"), null=True, blank=True) There are currently no values stored in these fields for any gloss.
Ah, interesting. That's conceptually exactly what we are talking about here, but using these fields would not lead to links, right, as they are a CharField and a BooleanField. Could you implement something using the same type of relations as we have for the compound parts, using 'blend' in the field name(s) that are needed?
@ocrasborn, what should the edit fields look like?
Yes! (The 'Role in this sign' is a string, right, not a vocabulary/list of field values?)
Yes, I made it a string.