Re: [Slim] Use of "non-sign" term

[Gunnar Hellström <[e-mail]>]

Bernard,

I agree with your conclusion and suggest that you make the final 
decision on which variant to proceed with.

Thanks,

Gunnar


Den 2017-12-07 kl. 20:08, skrev Bernard Aboba:
> Gunnar has made a  proposal for clarification of the language in 
> Section 5.4 that would use "tag for a non-signed language" instead of 
> "non-sign language":
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/slim/current/msg01192.html
>
> IMHO, this would yield a (slight) improvement in clarity.
>
> At the same time, Gunnar has also found some use of the term "non-sign 
> language":
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/slim/current/msg01193.html
> Such as:
> "It's thought that the system could help deaf users make presentations 
> to non-sign language speaking crowds. "
>
> and
>
> "Several researchers (Corina et al., 1992 
> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693477/#R5>; Emmorey et 
> al., 2004 <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693477/#R8>; 
> Marshall and Fink, 2001 
> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693477/#R17>) have 
> established that different neural systems subserve sign language 
> production and non-sign language pantomimic _expression_."
>
> It can be argued that the first usage uses non-sign to mean "crowds 
> whose members do not speak any sign language", which is not the same 
> meaning we are intending.
>
> However, the second usage appears much closer to our intention.
>
> Gunnar therefore proposes that the text can be left as is, and the 
> only objection appears to be from Keith.
>
> Given the rather minor nature of the issue and the arguments, I 
> believe WG census is that it is acceptable for the document to be 
> advanced as is, with or without Gunnar's proposed change.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SLIM mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
[e-mail]
[phone]