Signs to Code

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W	X	Y	Z	AA	AB	AC	AD
1	e	Entry ID (ASL-Lex)	Assigned to	In CD-ASL?	Notes	Finished?	Iffy?	Checked?	Comments on checking	Resolved?	Comments on second checking	Copy?	Copy notes	For discussion w/ Oksana	Bring up to Kaili	Needs repetition # specified	Repetition notes	Needs to be marked as a connected location	Needs to have sub-locations on the hand specified	Needs to have 1H signing space convention checked and two hands moving toward/away from each other checked	Compound?	Other updates	Checked for 1H, two hands towards/away, and contact?	Comments on checking	Notes from Kathleen	Notes from Kathleen (round 2)	Notes from Grace	Questions from Grace	Notes from Kathleen

2	1	1_dollar	Kathleen	yes, but under different gloss	under DOLLAR								copy 1_DOLLAR and change handshape to 5 handshape for 5_DOLLARS (but this isn't listed separately in the CD-ASL, though its general pattern is described); copy DOLLAR (v. 2) and include the Open-A / A handshape version.
3	2	5_dollars	Kathleen	yes, but under different gloss	DOLLAR
4	3	8_hour	Kathleen	yes, but under different gloss	will be under HOUR
5	4	9_oclock	Kathleen	yes, but under different gloss	will be under TIME
6	5	a-line_bob	Kathleen	not under this gloss
7	6	a_little_bit	Kathleen	yes, but under different gloss	will be under (A) LITTLE								(v. 3): same sign as (A) TOUCH OF (v. 2)
8	7	abbreviate	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					H1 moves both down & contra (based on the described starting position); there is a joint-specific 'closing' movement that results in the handshape change from C to S; H1's location should include radial surface (not just H2)		marked for copy (same sign as ABBREVIATION). as an unbalanced 2H sign, an axis of relation could be appropriate for the first location if the change in location wasn't pretty minor. [KCH: unbalanced 2H signs typically do NOT use axes of relation] all: indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in movement modules [KCH: right, this was a convention, but I've updated the conventions]		ABBREVIATE copy- ABBREVIATION duplicate Same sign as ACRONYM, CONDENSE, CONSICE, SHORT FOR (v.4), SUMMARIZE, SUM UP, SYNONSIS, DIGEST,, PREVIEW (v.2), RUNDOWN (v.2), SHORTEN, SHORT FOR											light contact? "the right is brought down to rest on top of the left"	Yes, this should be ‘light,’ so you coded it correctly.		change R1 to 'whole hand' 'ulnar' (opposite of locaiton, which is whole hand, radial)
9	8	about_1	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					Maybe consider marking all of the surfaces of the finger location, as an indication that H1 circles around the finger? Let me discuss this with Oksana. Compare to BANDAGE as well. [Yes, let's mark all surfaces when H1 moves around a location.]		ABOUT (v. 1): would be body-anchored rather than body location (result of newest github issue?). ABOUT (v. 2): x-slot timing didn't save within movement module- would last the whole sign. movement module should be marked with "H1 and H2 move towards each other" [KCH: should be 'away from' each other; this has been implemented]. I also would divide locations- a body-anchored location on the other hand's thumb + finger 1 at the x-slot startpoints and call the location ipsi-close at the x-slot endpoints. all: indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in movement modules.						v2 and v3 need numbers							ABOUT v2 Loc2 for both hands is underspecified --> added in between thumb & finger 1 (didn't specify surface)	This makes sense, because I don’t think we had the ‘between finger’ options at this point — thanks for updating.
10	9	about_2	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					should always mark whether a sign is bilat. symm. or not (this one is not); see general conventions about when to use handshape change vs. joint-specific movement (this one is joint-specific)		ABOUT (v. 3): needs lemma added. "smartly striking" = Speed / fast + Force / strong. ABOUT (v. 4): would be body-anchored location at Shoulder>ipsi, anterior surface. all: indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in movement modules.														ABOUT v. 3 should have the ulnar edge specified as the hand part for contact -- this might have been missing because 'whole hand' wasn't a hand part option when you started coding?	all good now
11	10	absolutely_nothing	Anushka	not under this gloss
12	11	accent	Anushka	not under this gloss
13	12	accept	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss							indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement module		copy for ACCEPTING (with repetition) same sign as TAKE (v. 6)											contact duration: the latter half or the endpoint?	With respect to duration, yes, this should just be end contact, so you coded that correctly. The handparts (fingertips) were missing here, too, so now I'm wondering if SLP-AA isn't storing them correctly. Also, I see that you coded this one as light contact, but I'm not seeing what in the definition prompted that choice in this case -- what am I missing?	all good now	R1 - copy from H1, as both hands need specification of where the contact occurs
14	13	access	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					all non-straight movements should also have a plane specified, so this would also have the 'sagittal plane' / 'proximal from the top of the circle' selected (even though the top of the circle is never actually used -- but this tells us that the actual arc is concave instead of convex)		would use body-anchored rather than body locations (result of newest github issue?). I would also probably follow the coding convention for "circling the hand" signs (involving selecting all the surface locations of the other hand selected, but in this case the back surface would be left out). since we haven't discussed that before I'll bring this up next meeting! [KCH: good point -- but the key difference is that in circles, there is only one location (the centre of the circle), while for arcs, we always specify the starting and ending location anyway -- so we should still do that here, rather than having a multiply-selected set of surfaces.		ACCESS copy- ADMIT, ADMISSION duplicate (without directional verb status)
15	14	accident	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					v. 1 -- the horizontal starting distance also needed to be marked (ipsi med., not just ipsi); this one also got changed because it has both hands coming together, so I put in the starting position in space and the end location on the other hand; v. 3 -- add in the axis direction for the arc; v. 4 -- we should check with an expert about whether there's also a perceptual shape movement (as suggested by the image)		ACCIDENT (v. 1): movement module should be marked with "H1 and H2 move towards each other". ACCIDENT (v. 2): movement should be Force / strong per convention for "firmly". I would divide this into two locations- the first at ipsi-close in space, the second on Chest/breast area>ipsi. KCH: Remember, if the only difference for the starting and ending location is that there is contact / no contact, only one location is used (as was originally coded here). ACCIDENT (v. 3): likely would specify Force / other (instead of 'weak') KCH: yes, I can see this, because it's really the contact that's weak, not the arc movement. Changed and added a prose description. in general: indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules.		Accident (v.1) needs a copy that means CRASH (v.1); (BY) ACCIDENT (v.4) Same sign as HAPPEN, OUTCOME, RESULT, BECOME OF, CIRCUMSTANCE, CONSEQUENCE, EVENT (v.2), TAKE (PLACE) (v. 29)									handshape in ACCIDENT v. 1 needs to be marked as 'variable'; force in ACCIDENT v. 3 needs to have note specifying that it's the contact that is 'weak' not the movement itself		v. 1: direction of relation added; v. 5: contact with chin at the beginning?	In v. 1, this one actually wasn't one that needed to be changed, because there's no specific indication that the movement was 'small.' So, I've changed it back to being coded as starting in neutral space and ending on the other hand, with contact (as a relation module associated to the end location). But, note that if it had been one to change, the newest version of the convention says that there is one relation module for the whole sign, which indicates the direction of the relation, and then a separate instance of the relation module that would code the end contact. That second relation module would be a relation between the two hands, NOT a relation between hands and a location. (I know this was changing a LOT while you were trying to code -- don't feel bad about not getting it right! Just, it's important to now be clear on what the final convention is -- let me know if you have any questions.) For v. 2, handparts were again missing. For v. 3, this is a bit of an unusual sign, but note that there is some contact at the halfway point of the sign. It would have been fine to just flag it as one that you weren't sure how to code, but it does need contact added. In this case, I think we can just add a relation module at the halfway point, specifying the direction and contact. The handparts aren't specified, so we need to ask an expert about that. For v. 5, yes, I think there's contact with the chin, but there's nothing to indicate that it's only at the beginning -- that is, I think the contact is for the whole duration of the sign, as 'holding' contact since the point of contact doesn't change (just the orientation of the hand). Again, you coded this as 'light' contact, but I'm not sure why.	v. 5 should be 'holding' rather than 'continuous'		V.1 Confirm that I don't need to add anything because within the location module the 'handpart' is already specified V.3 as you stated earlier in your notes, we don't actually know the part of the hand that are making contact with the eachother and therefore adding in a body part would not be possible yet correct? V5 double check that body part would be finger 1,2,3 back of medial bone?	v. 1: correct v. 3: right; and I did ask JM, but this wasn't a sign he knew, so we had to skip it; we'll continue to leave it unspecified. v. 5: can just be back of Finger 1, 2, and 3 -- don't need to specify the bone
16	15	accomplish	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	location? feels like an appropriate place for body-anchored				needs a second movement module that's perceptual shape straight --> up to account for the text indicating the hands are 'raised' (in addition to the change in palm orientation through twisting); I think you're right about the use of the forehead and calling this a body-anchored sign (remember that the degree of closeness / lack of contact will get coded separately in the 'contact' module).				"same sign" for ACCOMPLISHMENT; also for ACHIEVE and ACHIEVEMENT												You did everything I told you to do correctly on this, in that there's no contact, and so you didn't add a relation module. But it occurs to me looking at it now that this kind of sign should also be one for you to have on your radar, where the distance between the hands and the body location changes. These are also cases where we need relation modules, even though there is not contact. In this particular case, we'd have one at the beginning with 'close' distance and one at the end with 'medium' distance, because the dictionary specifies that the hands start 'almost touching.' I've updated the conventions accordingly.	because there's never any contact, this should be a 'body-anchored' location instead of a 'body' location, and because the distance changes, instead of one relation module, there should have been two -- one at the beginning with 'close' and one at the end with 'medium' distance	nothing to change yet	Technically no contact at all in sign - do I still need to specify the 'almost' contact of finger 2 tip? Relation 2 in this case would also not need to be specified because all it is doing is specifying that hands are now 'med'. Full Q - do we need to specify handpart for either R1 or R2, given that there is almost contact? Or should I treat this like all other 'no contact' relation module signs.	Definitely don't need to specify handpart for R2. R1 is already coded as "close" which is correct, and in this case, yes, I think we can go ahead and specify the hand parts even though there's no contact, because the dictionary specifies "forefingers." That's just Finger 1 -- don't then read any more into it like the surface or bone.
17	16	accordion	Anushka	not under this gloss
18	17	accountant	Anushka	yes, but under different gloss	ACCOUNTING				because this is a straight movement, the starting and ending locations should be coded separately; but, these will need to get added later once we have added the sub-areas on the hand as separate locations; we should probably also check with an expert about the orientation of H2 to make sure we have the direction correct here (i.e., does 'forward' mean 'toward the fingertips' or 'away from the body')		indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules.		"same sign" for ACCOUNTANT (with its own alt. version with agent ending)									ACCOUNTING needs to have handparts in the relation module specified as thumb AND finger 1, once multiple selection is allowed		one relation module across 2 time slots or two separate identical ones?	It can be one module across the two x slots, as you coded. Note that the handparts on ACCOUNTING can't currently be specified, because the system doesn't allow you to selectively choose thumb and finger 1, but we should note this down for a future update.		thumb and index finger tip for handpart !
19	18	acquire	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					should add an 'axis of relation' to account for the 'right on top of left' component of the definition		indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules.														For the relation module that indicates H1 is above H2, this should include contact and handparts. For the relation module at the end of x1, I think this actually shouldn't involve contact, as the dictionary specifies "toward" the chest, not "to" the chest. (This was something updated after these signs were originally coded, so this should have been coded as a body-anchored sign, which would have made this more obvious.) I think that, as with ACCOMPLISH, this actually should have distances coded as well, and I've update the conventions to reflect that. In this case, there's an initial distance of medium and a final distance of close.	Again, there's no contact at all here, so the chest would be a 'body-anchored' location here. Note that the handpart for H2 is the radial side, not the ulnar side.	no need to change, as r2 and r3 are only there for the purpose of showing relation between the hand and body NO CONTACT
20	19	act	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	(v.1) starting direction not specified, not relevant?				right, for v. 1, since it doesn't specify the direction, just use 'horizontal axis' without specifying ipsi or contra -- also, the location should also be specified as a 'connected' location; for v. 2, I'm not sure why there are three x slots instead of 2 (since it just says it's 'circles' without specifying a number, so our default is to say 2 repetitions plus the minimum marking); also for v. 2, I don't think we need the 'straight' perceptual movement -- I think the part in the text referring to 'brought down against the chest' is referring to the point of contact during the 'back' part of the circles themselves; also in v2, note that the location specification is incomplete -- it should specify the chest as the body-anchored location; for v.3 -- I know I said that 'all movement modules' should be specified for 'additional characteristics,' but I was wrong -- fingerspelled forms can just be marked as 'handshape change' and nothing else; for v. 3 -- the hor. location default for fingerspelled signs is 'close,' not 'med' (but maybe I should ask Oksana about that!) [yes, change this to Med]		ACT (v. 1): I took "swung" to imply an arc movement (the image also suggests that). KCH: I've updated the conventions on how to deal with 'swing' / 'swung' terminology.		v. 2 "same sign" for ACTOR, ACTRESS (with their own alt. versions with agent ending)				v. 2 needs the repetition # specified								For v. 2, this is one of those brand new conventions, so it's fine that you didn't actually code the contact, but it should have been marked for needing some contact. We'll say that the contact is happening at the mid point of each cycle.	For v. 1, I don't think we need a relation module, because the location is already specified as each hand being on the ipsilateral side, which requires that H1 is ipsilateral to H2 already. Let me know if there is some convention I'm forgetting about that suggests a relation module is needed here -- I might want to update it. For v. 2, the relation modules were set up correctly, but the actual specification that there is 'contact' was missing, as were the handparts (though these I think aren't actually clear from the text, so we should check with an expert).	leave blank	v.2 - part of hand that makes contact is not clear from text and we put it on 'to consult an expert'. Then JM skipped and didn't know - is it okay to move on and leave this blank?	Yep.
21	20	action	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	same as ACT (v.1)				needs to be a separate entry, however -- I've marked this as needing to be copied				copy from ACT v. 2
22	21	actor	Anushka	yes, but under different gloss	ACT (v.2)
23	22	add	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	(v.2): directionality and repetition of fluttering? (v.3): underside of hand?				v.1 Mov1 shouldn't be trilled and I've updated the locations here because it's a case of the hands being brought together (signing space to other hand); v. 2 Mov1 should be specified as Vertical-->up; I'm not sure about the directionality of the fluttering -- will ask Oksana; I'm not sure about 'maintaining contact' in the sign type -- we should probably consult an expert on that; missing v. 3 (I think you know this already!) [fluttering is inherently bidirectional so don't specify it further; ask Kaili to grey out the uni / bi options for flutterings]; for v. 2, I'm not totally sure about how to do the locations, because it is a straight movement (and so should have starting and ending locations), and isn't different just in terms of contact, but the locations seem to be more about the relation between H1 and H2 than about the locations in space...so for now, I've used axis of relation for both starting and ending, and indicated that we need to consult a linguistic expert about this too; for v. 3, the dictionary specifies two movements: one where the wrist rotates (which is pivoting, not twisting), and one where the fingers close. These should both be joint-specific movements, and there is no perceptual shape movement involved. It looks like you tried to doubly-specify the wrist movement by calling it both a twist and a straight movement, and then didn't include the closing movement of the fingers. Please be careful to follow the description. I would also be inclined to include an axis of relation specification here, just because the dictionary is so careful in laying out the starting position of the two hands with respect to each other, but that's more of a grey area for sure.		ADD (v. 1): with recent push, movement module should be marked with "H1 and H2 move towards each other". might also be good to note that flexion is involved with some but not all the joints? indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules. ADD (v. 2): indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules. ADD (v. 3): I would have interpreted "rotates" to mean Twisting>supination like Anushka originally did. The dictionary has used "rotates" to mean twisting in other signs like (BY) ACCIDENT (v. 5) and BANDAGE so it seemed logical enough. KCH: Good point. I was biased by my version of this sign. I have added it to our list to consult an expert about.		v. 1 can basically be copied for ADDITION entry									v. 1: Add note to 'closing' movement specification that this is "Closing here involved adduction and flexion of the base joints, not full flexion of all joints." Update joint activity once finger options have been updated.		v. 1: contact duration? v. 3: not sure how to code the contact at the end: do I need to specify which parts of h1 and h2 are in contact?. 'Swung upward': potentially fast movement?	For v. 1, this one is like ACCIDENT, and shouldn't have been changed in its representation, because the movement isn't 'small.' So, we keep it with a starting spatial location and an ending hand location that now has contact just at the endpoint. For v. 2, note that the 'right [hand] is nearer the chest,' which means X is proximal to Y (closer to the body than Y), not distal. Also, note that the dictionary doesn't specify whether contact happens at all, so we should check with an expert (this one was actually already on our list). For v. 3, yes, the handpart of H1 should be coded here (radial side of whole hand); the handpart of H2 is already coded as part of the location. I think that although "swung upward" could be done quickly, it's reasonable to imagine the text saying "swung slowly" or "swung quickly," which suggests that "swung" by itself doesn't mean the movement has to be fast.		V.1 - no change needed - same as ACCIDENT v1 where location module specifies where the contact is V2 - if no contact - no need to change - if contact then change lots. V. 3 - no need to change because second R module exists	V2 - Currently we are not sure if there is contact between the hands or not, which would change how the sign is coded altogehter correct? If there were contact, the Location would change from neutral space to on H2, and then associated relation modules would be added specifying where the contact occurs? We also asked Jonathan but he didn't know the sign and it was skipped. Essentially, should I just leave it as a no contact sign (therefore I don't have to change anything to do with handpart) ?	right!
24	23	addict	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss							would maybe indicate head movement in movement module notes KCH: we'll eventually have a non-manual module separately, so we don't need to track these for the moment		"same sign" for ADDICTION												I think the contact here lasts for the whole duration of the sign, not just the beginning. Also, this is again marked as 'light' but I'm not sure why. And, the handpart ("tip of forefinger") was missing. I feel like I am probably missing something here, or the software is acting up somehow...
25	24	address	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	(v.1): text mismatch to image (v.3): does "right arm is raised" need to be coded or is it transitional?				Good catches! For v. 3, no, I think the act of raising is transitional, and the fact that the hand is raised just affects the location, which you correctly coded as 'high.' For all repetitions, make sure that you code whether the location of the repetition is the same (true in most cases) or different. (It's possible you did that and it somehow got lost in the mix-up with the coding, but just as a reminder!) For v. 4 -- remember that our convention is never to use the "body-anchored signing space" locations -- this should have just been a "body" starting location and a signing space ending location. ("Body-anchored signing space locations" will eventually involve also specfiying a spatial relation between the hand and the body, and is mostly just a different theoretical way of looking at things. We will only use "body" locations and then the contact module to indicate whether there is contact between the hand and the body.)		ADDRESS (v. 1): would indicate "ipsi half" for chest sub-location. KCH: I think you're probably actually right about this. But note that the definition doesn't specify that the hands are 'held apart,' which is what we need to have in order for the 'ipsi' specification. Otherwise, it's correct to just label this as 'chest' with no further specification. That said, let's check with an expert. for all: indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules.														v. 1: handparts missing; v. 2: handparts missing and 'light' selected	for v. 2, it just says "fingertips," so I would select "tip" for the handpart (and not the 'back' surface)	v. 1 - add in other hand copy then all good
26	25	admire	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	(v.2): doesn't specify which hand is the slightly ahead one				For v. 1 -- make sure the closing movement of the hand is also included as a second movement module. For v. 2 -- I've added it to the list of signs to ask an expert about for the axis of relation / sagittal relation, but don't forget that the hands are also held 'apart,' with H1 to the H1 side of H2, which should also be included in the relation. Also, don't forget to include both the axis direction and the plane direction for arcs (that may have been a new convention since you coded it, but it applies here). Also in v. 2, you correctly coded that there is a starting and ending location, but not what the ending location actually is. We should probably consult an expert to find out if this is close --> med or med --> far, but I've coded it as med --> far for now.		ADMIRE (v. 1): same sign as LIKE (v. 1). indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules. might also be good to note that flexion is involved with some but not all the joints? ADMIRE (v. 2): I would interpret the text as including an unnodding movement as the palm orientation changes. KCH: I see why this is a possible interpretation, but unlike palm orientation changes that involve rotation, this one is at least possible* to achieve with just an arc movement and not un-nodding instead or in addition. Given that the wrist movement isn't specified here, our convention says that we should use the perceptual shape by default. But, I'll add it to the list to check with an expert about. per directional verb convention, direction should be indicated as “variable” with “directional verb”		ADMIRE (v. 1) copy- LIKE (v. 1) duplicate									v. 1: Add note to 'closing' movement specification that this is "Closing here involved flexion of the base joints, not full flexion of all joints." Update joint activity once finger options have been updated. Add handpart of tip of thumb and finger 2 in relation module once multiple selection is possible. v. 2: Add note on direction of arc movement: direction should be indicated as “variable” with “directional verb”;			v. 1: handparts missing (though they can't be totally specified anyway yet because multiple selection isn't yet allowed)		v.1 changed to indicate contact with middle and thumb with chest V2 - no change needed as no contact
27	26	admit	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					For v. 1 -- make sure there is a location for H2 in any two-handed sign. This one definitely is a bit tricky, because there's both an arc, for which we'd expect a starting and ending point for H1, and the fact that H1 specifically goes 'under' H2. I've added a convention to the conventions document -- basically this is still all relative to H2, but we do need the starting and ending positions. These would then be the radial and ulnar sides of H2, with the 'under' part being specified with an extra location at the halfway point (H2-friction).		ADMIT (v. 1): *same sign as ACCESS (except directional verb status). per convention, direction should be indicated as “variable” with “directional verb”. same notes as for ACCESS. ADMIT (v. 2): indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules.		v. 1 -- same sign for ADMISSION, ACCESS, ENTER, ENTRANCE, ENTRY (except ACCESS is not a directional verb); v. 2 -- need variant with 2 hands beginning with one on either side of chest									v. 1: Add note on direction of arc movement: direction should be indicated as “variable” with “directional verb”				v. 2 -- friction surface of 'hand minus fingers' (i.e. palm) should have been specified; not sure why this was marked as 'light'?
28	27	adopt	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss							ADOPT (v. 1): per convention, direction should be indicated as “variable” with “directional verb” (may also apply to ADOPT (v. 1 alt.), unclear -- KCH: good point, but I don't think that fingerspelling can be made directional). both: indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules.		ADOPT (v. 1) copy- ADOPTION (v. 1) duplicate. ADOPT (v. 2) copy- ADOPTION (v. 2) duplicate.									v. 1: Add note on direction of movement: direction should be indicated as “variable” with “directional verb”				v. 1 -- this is another one where the distance between H1 and the location changes, so there should be a 'med' distance to start and a 'close' distance at the end; v. 2 -- fingertips missing as the selected hand part	V1 I don't think any change needed - confirmed with kathleen. no change needed as no contact V2 - added in other hand
29	28	adult	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					You did everything right here, but I think this is a good reason to introduce proper body-anchored signing space signs. We'll go over that on Wednesday.		as references both shoulder and chin, would it make any sense to anchor it to the shoulder as well? just my thought. KCH: Hmm, good point -- I've added it as a separate beginning location.											make this a body-anchored signing space sign				v. 1 -- I might have missed this before, but looking at this now, I think the fact that the dictionary specifies that H1 starts "above" the shoulder means we should have a relation module here specififying that H1 is above this location.	V1 I think nothing needs to be changed bc no contact, and hand part doesn't seem relevant.
30	29	advantage	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss							*same sign as BENEFIT, BENEFICIAL		need variant with location at contra chest									check to make sure ADVANTAGE, BENEFIT, BENEFICIAL are all coded the same way
31	30	advertise	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss							would specify Size / small and Force / strong per conventions. indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules.		same sign for ADVERTISEMENT, PROMOTE (v. 2)												X is distal to Y in this case; handpart missing; also, this is another one where I think distance will actually need to be coded, so I'm updating the conventions	note that in the relation module that spans the whole sign, contact shouldn't be specified (since that's what's changing during the sign)	no change needed because hand parts are specified in the other relation modules
32	31	africa	Anushka	not under this gloss
33	32	after	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					for v. 1 -- make sure the arc has an axis direction as well as a plane direction; also, this is another one where we'll want to mark the beginning and ending locations separately once we have sub-areas on the back of the hand (the difference between the starting and ending location isn't just due to contact); for v. 2, we should check with an expert to see whether contact is actually maintained; for v. 2, note that the description does NOT specify that this is a joint action and just says that H2 moves forward and downward, so this should be a perceptual shape (straight) movement, not a joint-specific pivoting (though we can also check with an expert to see if this is indeed how it's usually articulated); for v. 3, note that the description says that it's the fingers that bend, not the wrist, so this is flattening, not nodding (though, again, we can double-check this with an expert); for v. 4, you correctly said it was a body location but didn't actually specify the chin		AFTER (v. 2): I would call H1's location Other hand>Fingers and select their back surface. KCH: nothing in the text description specifies the fingers in particular; it just says "across the back of the left STANDARD BASE hand." Note that what is currently missing from the locations are the differences between the radial and ulnar side of the back of the hand. These options aren't available yet, and the sign has been marked as needing these to be specified. AFTER (v. 3): H1's location should be Other hand>Hand minus fingers. in the alternative version, I think this would be nodding instead of flattening as the text suggests the H2 HC is "L" throughout. all: indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules.		(v. 1): needs copy meaning PAST (v. 2) (v.3): needs variant with right hand beginning and ending with 'L' shape, with nodding instead of flattening)											v. 2: contact duration?; v. 3: H1.Loc1 underspecified. H1.Rel1: contact duration? Light contact? Holding contact?	v. 1: I think there's continuous contact here, though we should probably check with an expert.; v. 2: handparts missing, and to answer your question, I think this is a case of continuous contact for the first half of x1, but we should check with an expert; v. 3: handparts missing, but yes, this is holding contact and 'light' because it is 'resting'; v. 4: handparts missing	v. 1 -- handparts were missing
34	33	afternoon	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					for v. 1 -- you did bring this up in the meeting (yay!), but it should have been marked as 'iffy' / with a note here as well since the locations weren't actually coded. I ended up coding H1 in neutral space and H2 on the contralateral forearm. But, this feels a bit funny to me, and I think we should talk to another linguist about it. This one also raises questions about the surfaces of the forearm (because rotation at the wrist changes the surfaces near the wrist but not near the elbow). And, I'm pretty sure this sign is usually repeated, and I think that's what the image shows, so we should also check with an expert signer about this one. For v. 2, you've coded it exactly the way I would, but I think we should also check with an expert about whether the downward movement is lexical or transitional.		AFTERNOON (v. 1): would probably have also gone with what Kathleen suggested. both: indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules											check this sign; might need arm positions specified; arm parts in relation module may need to be updated in new version of location hierarchy (it's not the contralateral forearm)		v2 finger surface?	v. 1: this whole sign was coded a bit oddly, because we didn't have the option to code arm parts originally; I have updated the whole coding accordingly; v. 2: handparts missing	for v. 2, the dictionary says "side of the forefinger", so I would say Finger 1 / radial side for both relation modules (note that 'contact' was missing in the second relation module)	need to specify the 'forearm'	What 'arm part' should I specify for 'forearm'? I currently have put 'forearm - anterior surface, but am not sure if that is right'.	Ah right...let's re-code this one a bit. For H2, can you please re-code the location to be purely spatial, Hor: Contra-med; Ver: Mid; and Sag: in front-med. Then Arm 2 is fine with its location on the back of the hand, but the relation module associated there should specify forearm as the body part that makes contact. Don't worry about which surface it is; this is a known issue with upper-forearm surfaces, so our convention is not to specify them: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MPECcd3Dx122PP22jDSXOlYnRJgQ3U8ZfGf-GBy6D5E/edit#bookmark=id.pjzqvxv9ajal
35	34	same sign as OVER (v.8), ENCORE, REPEAT, RENEW	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					Note that the definition also specifies that H1 is 'overturned,' so you need to have pronation as a separate movement from the arc.		might call the H1 first location and H2 location ipsi-close KCH: hmm, yeah, I don't feel very confident on how we're deciding distances like this -- let's discuss													h1 fingers surface?	handparts missing; not sure why 'light' coded	in general, when 'fingertips' are specified in the text, you can just use 'tip' in the handpart specification, with no surface specified
36	35	against	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					Here, the dictionary describes starting and ending locations very distinctly, so we should copy that. The first has H1 'close to the chest' (so, 'chest,' with the closeness eventually coming from the contact module) and the second has H1 striking the '[other] hand between the palm and the fingers' (so, 'other hand / fingers / MCP joint').				needs variant with right hand configuration 'B'												handparts missing; can also add relation module at beginning for H1 being 'very close' to chest	(so here, too, I wouldn't specify the 'back' of the fingertips -- just 'tip')	fine to leave because R1 has no contact, and R2 has contact specified.
37	36	age	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					for v. 1 -- I think the location here can just be specified as 'chin,' with the difference in starting and ending position specified in the contact module. But note that even though the hand configuration isn't given as a completely different named handshape at the start, it does specify that the handshape isn't quite a proper 'S' handshape (it's somewhat open, and then closes to a full S as part of the movement). So, we should have a different starting and ending hand configuration. I know you have only limited experience with the use of the full coding system for hand config, so I'm happy to do the actual coding of the first hand config -- just make sure you're marking this kind of instance so I know I need to come in and do it. In this case, I basically just turned all the "F"s (for 'fully flexed') to "f"s (for partially flexed) to indicate the slight openness. For v. 2 -- don't forget to include the axis direction when specifying a straight movement!		AGE (v. 2): convention for "lightly" is Force / weak, not Size / small (although that probably also applies). both: indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules.													v. 1: contact with chin at the beginning? v1 motion repeated, additional x slots for rel 1 and rel 2 selected	v. 1: good question; I think there's contact, but we should double check with an expert; note also the specification of distances (this is a new convention); v. 2: handparts missing	for v. 1, I would just use 'whole hand' / radial side not 'hand minus fingers' / radial side for the hand part	v.1 - no need for body part as no contact
38	37	agency	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss							needs "Fingerspelled" checked off
39	38	agreement	Anushka	yes, but under different gloss	AGREE				The locations on this one are tricky! I think we need to consult an expert to know for sure what's happening. Given that the description specifies 'at chest level,' I'd say this is again one of our newly allowable body-anchored signing space locations. Then, I think you're right to use the axis of relation specifications, but we need to also specify that H1 is to the H1 side of H2 (not just directly above it). At the end of the definition, it says something about the two hands 'matching,' and I don't know for sure what that means. I think it's possible that they end up at the same vertical level, so we'd start with an axis of relation that is H1 above and to the H1-side of H2, and end with H1 just being to the H1-side of H2. But it could be that it just meant that H1 and H2 are just both facing downward (matched in orientation). And then the image is a bit ambiguous and maybe makes it look like there's also a difference on the sagittal axis. All in all, one to check about!		*same sign as BECOME (v. 2). my thought is that both hands "match" in being downturned, not in height on the vertical axis. this coding has no axis of relation (BECOME (v. 2) was coded with both hands at the chest/breast area, I'm not sure if that's better than this coding where H1 doesn't receive that specification and only has the axis of relation. It also didn't specify that H1 is to the H1 side of H2 because technically the text doesn't say that- image does suggest it so this could be up for consulation?) KCH: right...I had already changed BECOME v. 2 to match this version of AGREE, but I do think we need to check with an expert on a lot of this!		"same sign" for AGREEMENT, BECOME (v. 2)														AGREE - no need for body part - no contact
40	39	airplane	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	handshape "Combined ILY"?				Yes, this is what we call the ILY handshape; good catch! Remember too that the default neutral space location should be 'central' on the horizontal axis. If ther picture makes it look like it's actually ipsi (quite common with 1H signs like this), then just add it to the list of signs to consult an expert about.		indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules.		"same sign" for AIRPORT													not sure if this was you or a mistake in the original coding, but the horizontal location should have been ipsi/med, not contra/med
41	40	alarm	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss							tapping should be Size / small. H2 location would be Other hand>Hand minus fingers. KCH: yes, but I would call this H1 location (it's the location of H1, which happens to be on H2) indicate when plane or axis is "not relevant" in perceptual movement modules														handparts missing; note also that this should have been contact only at the end of each x-slot, not intermittent throughout
42	41	alaska	Anushka	not under this gloss
43	42	alcohol	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					Note that this one gives a specific number ("twice") so it shouldn't be marked as a minimum. If you are interpreting 'tap' as the reason for marking this as a 'small' movement, it should be added to the list of prose terms (and probably brought up as a convention, because that's not super obvious). Also: the two hands contact each other on different surfaces (it's the radial side of H2 that H1 contacts, while it's the ulnar side of H1 that H2 contacts). So we can't just mark the 'ulnar side of the other hand' as the location for both hands. In this case, let's just use the more generic "other hand" without the surface marking, so that it does still apply to both hands. The actual surface can at least be inferred once we have the orientations in place as well.		needs ALCOHOLIC copy. movement module should be marked with "H1 and H2 move towards each other" and should be unmarked "out of phase" and "this number is a minimum"		"same sign" for ALCOHOLIC														because the other relation module has the information then it is okay that R1 has no hand part specificaitions
44	43	align	Anushka	not under this gloss
45	44	all	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	v.1: just one location of H1? direction of the circle is unspecified v.2: the movement was a little confusing				For v. 1, I think you've coded it correctly based on the text definition, which is what you're supposed to do! But thanks for marking it as iffy, because I think you're right. I've added it to the list of signs to consult an expert about. I think that it should actually have a starting location above H2 (on the radial side) and with H1 facing out, and then have a distal-circling movement along with a twisting (supinating) movement, and then have an ending location of the palm of H2. For v. 2, I think you've basically done it correctly -- just a few notes: (1) I'm not sure how far the movement is actually likely to go, but going all the way to the contra side, 'medium' distance, seems pretty unlikely -- we can ask an expert about how far it usually goes; (2) note that the description says the straight movement is 'sharp,' so it should have been marked as 'fast' and 'strong' according to our list of prose terms; (3) note that there is some variability described here too, so that it could be vertical instead of horizontal and/or be a two-handed sign. These options need to be noted somewhere. Finally, I 100% love that you coded this as an opening movement of the hand in addition to the straight and twisting movement, and usually, that would be totally the right thing to do. In this case, however, the reason it's going from an "A" to and "L" handshape is because this is a lexicalized fingerspelled sign for "A-L-L," so I think it's better to make that a 'handshape change' movement instead of an 'opening' movement.		ALL (v. 2): says "smartly" rather than "sharply" which we have being coding as just Speed / fast. variability yet to be noted- we now have notes for sign type which can be used for 1H/2H variability. KCH: Right. I just can't add notes on my Mac yet (lol), so that is noted in the 'other updates' column. :)		(v. 1): same sign as WHOLE									for v. 2, need to add variability notes			v. 1: handparts missing
46	45	all_day	Anushka	not under this gloss
47	46	all_gone	Anushka	not under this gloss
48	47	all_of_sudden	Anushka	not under this gloss
49	48	all_over	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					I agree that you've coded a sign that matches what I think this sign looks like, but I cannot find the gloss "ALL OVER" in the dictionary. Am I missing something? Oh! I see...it's under "OVER" -- that's fine, but maybe make the gloss match the dictionary entry, so that's it "(ALL) OVER" and hence more obvious where it actually occurs in the dictionary?		since the text describes a "wide arc" I would have coded the movement with Size / big
50	49	all_over_body	Anushka	not under this gloss
51	50	all_together	Anushka	not under this gloss
52	51	all_way	Anushka	not under this gloss
53	52	alone	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					thanks for remembering to include this on the list to check location for!
54	53	alphabet	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					For v. 1: this is one that should be marked as a compound because it's got the notation of the ASL 'concept' that is a combination of ideas; also, note that the description only mentions the rightward movement in the 'fluttering' part of the sign. There should, however, be a handshape change movement for x1-x3 during the spelling part.		ALPHABET (v. 1): x4 movement should be marked with characteristics of single/not trilled/unidirectional. KCH: basically yes, but fluttering doesn't get 'unidirectional' (or any specification for directionality).
55	54	alright	Anushka	not under this gloss
56	55	always	Anushka	yes, but under different gloss					this is one where we said last week that we'd treat it as a minimum because it just says "makes a couple of ... circles"		to me, the text doesn't specify which plane the circles occur on. KCH: We should probably check with an expert, but I think we can infer the plane from the palm orientation. That said, I think that it probably has components on both the vertical and horizontal planes, given that the palm is both 'up' and 'toward the body'															not sure if this was you or a mistake in the original coding, but the horizontal location should have been ipsi/med, not contra/med
57	56	amazing	Anushka	not under this gloss
58	57	america	Anushka		There is a sign for America in the dictionary but only the sign is given and it isn't presented as a separate dictionary entry with a description of the sign
59	58	analyze	Anushka	yes, but under different gloss					make sure to indicate that we need a copy of this one for 'ANALYSIS'		should be marked with "H1 and H2 move away from each other". as the contact isn't specified, I would mark the x1 startpoint location as body-anchored.		same sign 'ANALYSIS'
60	59	and	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					basically looks great -- I'm just not entirely sure about the starting and ending positions / how far it moves, so we should check with an expert
61	60	angel	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					You made the right choice to code these as perceptual shapes given our conventions, but note the mismatch between that and the illustration, which makes this look like twisting and nodding. We should consult an expert about these. It's also not clear to me whether the movement is repeated or not, so we should check that, too. Also note that if it's an arc movement, the direction is sagittal / distal (as you coded), but the PLANE is the horizontal plane, with the movement being ipsi from the top. Finally note the use of 'slightly' in the definition, which should get coded as 'size / small.'
62	61	angry	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	the loaded handshapes only have a "clawed extended 5" and not just "clawed 5"				Ah, right...the handshape discrepancy is somewhat intentional, because the dictionary images of the handshapes do have the thumb still extended for 'clawed 5'. You can use 'clawed extended 5' here, but we should probably add a proper 'clawed 5' option to the handshape set.		mentions that this is a MAD (v. 1) alt.- how should this be connected/lemmatized if at all? KCH: updated in conventions -- gets put under "MAD" in this case		same sign 'ANGER"												This one we should check with an expert about, but I think that the contact is continuous for at least the first part of the sign, so let's code it as 1/2 rather than just beginning contact. The image is unclear but could be interpreted as maintaining contact the whole time. But, in most online versions I know, the hands do lose contact at the end.
63	62	animal	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	v.1: unsure how to code the movement- the hands stay in the same place but the forearms move inward and outward- would this be a good place to specify joint activity?				For v. 1: great question! I think it's probably something like nodding and/or supination, but we should ask an expert! For v. 2: again, we need to check with an expert about this. You did code it following the parts that are explicitly stated in the definition, but note that it also specifies that the right hand is acting like the front legs and the left hand acts like the back legs. That definitely suggests that the hands are NOT bilaterally symmetric, but rather have the right in front of the left and possibly moving as a connected unit (e.g. https://youtu.be/ekCKlPO7Ues?t=42). Also, remember that our default if no location is specified is to put the hands central on the horizontal axis, NOT ipsilateral.		ANIMAL (v. 1): I also think that joint activity would make sense here, since we're now using it in "unusual" movements. KCH: yes, potentially so -- it's just already unclear what exacly the movement is, so I'm not sure which joint activity to specify. It's on our list to ask an expert about. ANIMAL (v. 2): second movement module should specify characteristics of single/not trilled											based on what expert says, maybe include joint activity?
64	63	announce	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					Note that there must also be a twisting movement here to make the palm orientation change as described. A straight movement by itself would keep the palms facing down / toward the body.		at endpoint of x1, "Ipsi" location should have a specification (e.g. Ipsi>mid). KCH: agree, and I've updated the conventions with what our default specifications should be		same sign "ANNOUNCEMENT'												I notice that you fairly consistently code both "tip" and "friction surface." My intuition would have been that if it's "tip" then no surface needs to be specified, but let's see what the other coders are doing. Note, though, that in this sign, you were inconsistent across the two hands -- one was "friction / tip" and one was just "tip."
65	64	answer	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					Note that the description just says that "H1 is near the mouth" and then describes H2 in relation to H1. So, the 'mouth' location should apply only to H1, not both hands. It is also only 'near' the mouth, so it should be body-anchored signing space (not body located). And, all the text says is "mouth," so it should just be "mouth" in the coding, not the ipsilateral corner of the mouth. Given that the image makes it look like it's that specific, we can check with an expert, though (but in this case, I don't think it actually is always / usually the corner). Finally, again remember that the default neutral position is central, not ipsilateral.		marked for copy. this seems more like nodding at the wrist to me if any joint-specific movement, not pronation. KCH: I agree on that -- not sure where we got the pronation from! but we'll add it to the signs to consult an expert about because I'm similarly not convinced there's nodding too. H1 startpoint of x1 location should be body-anchored rather than body. (also deciding on marking one hand of balanced 2H signs with only an axis of relation vs. that plus a location in space/anchored space.)		"same sign" for ANSWER (n.)
66	65	antlers	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	does not specify the direction in which the arms move				Right. I think you've coded this correctly, with the direction not specified. Note though that the definition says both "slightly" and "gently" so it should be both "small" and "weak."		text/image mismatch- image suggests repetition of tapping. KCH: added to list to check with expert about
67	66	any	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss							potential text/image mismatch- image suggests some perceptual movement as well as joint-specific KCH: added to check-with-an-expert list
68	67	anyone	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss							(checked off as checked but not as finished, plus not coded yet?) KCH: it's a compound, so 'coded' by being checked off here as 'compound'! :)
69	68	apart	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					I think this is better treated analogously to a sign where the two hands start touching -- i.e., the starting location should be on the other hand (in this case, because it's definitely not touching, it can be a body-anchored signing space location). But the key point is that it's not starting just in signing space. Also note that technically, the direction isn't specified here either, though I think you're right that it's ipsilateral. But we should check with an expert. E.g., it's possible that the only thing that matters is that the hands move away from each other, but they could be located anywhere, and hence the direction of movement could be any direction.																here, I think it's fine to just specify the 'backs' of the fingers, without going into quite so much detail about the specific bones involved -- we aren't typically coding the specific bones unless they're somehow specified in the text
70	69	appear	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	v.2: unsure how to clarify the finger is being thrust inbetween the middle and forefinger				Yes, that's a tricky one! I'd say that it starts at the beginning of x1 with an axis of relation with H1 below H2. Then at the end of x1, H1 can be located at the ulnar side of Finger 2 and at the radial side of Finger 3 simultaneously.		APPEAR (v. 1): movement should be Size / small. plus as it "twists to face the right shoulder", I think this could imply that its location in space is on the ispi side, not central- but it could also only mean that the palm orientation is towards the right shoulder? maybe something to consult an expert on? KCH: yes, it was already on the list as being one to check central vs. ipsi APPEAR (v. 2): I would have coded the ending H1 location as Other hand>Between Fingers 2 and 3 as that seems to cover the surfaces in itself and is more concise. KCH: Yes, I do think this is a more efficient way of getting at it. Note that it should have been Fingers 1 and 2, both in the original coding and in the revised version. :)													is there contact? not sure about contact surface	yeah, v. 2 is tricky -- I think this should actually be re-coded, such that there's a starting relation of H1 below H2, with no contact, and then an end Location for H1 "between" fingers 1 and 2 of H2, with an associated relation module showing contact (but not with X and Y crossed, because this is now captured by "between"). Most of these were just choices that weren't available when the sign was originally coded; mostly just important to flag these kinds of 'weird' signs for someone to take another look at!
71	70	apple	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	v.1: unsure which direction it twists in first - which corresponds with 'back' and which is 'forth'				Well, 'back and forth' on this plane would literally be 'backward' first (pronation) and then 'forward' (supination). But, 'back and forth' is such a set expression that I'm not sure we should take it literally. I think you coded it correctly; just add it to the list of signs to consult an expert about when you're sure there's missing information like this. For v. 2: note that the handshape should be 'clawed-L' not 'clawed-extended-L' -- please mark things like this instead of just picking a similar handshape. (In this case, it actually turns out that what the dictionary called 'clawed-L' we call 'clawed-extnded-L,' so you were right! But, it's always best to double-check, and also in this case, it highlights to me the fact that we don't have a proper 'clawed-L' shape.) Note also that the specific location of 'chin' was missing from the first coded location. And, both locations should be body-anchored signing space locations rather than body locations, because there's no indication of contact at any point -- the dictionary is just using these locations as reference points in space.		APPLE (v. 2): locations not yet changed to body-anchored													v1 holding or continuous contact? from asl-lex it seems like the slight movement changes the location of the contact a little bit	holding contact -- remember, we're just following the text of the dictionary, so that would just be twisting in place; if you think we should double check with an expert, that's fine and the sign can be added to the list, but go ahead and code it as listed	hmm, I'm confused here -- the version I downloaded has 'continuous' contact even though I specified 'holding' should be used; also I think it's the back surface of the finger
72	71	appointment	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					For v.1, I think the location is just "Finger 1" not all "Fingers." Otherwise, this all looks good to me -- was there anything in particular that made you mark it as 'iffy'?															v1 not sure about the surafce for finger1 and finger2 in the relation module	for v. 1: I'd say it's the ulnar side of finger 1 and the radial side of finger 2; these do make contact with the location, but shouldn't have been marked as 'crossed'; also, the contact happens only at the end of x1, not for an interval for the whole second half of x1 for v. 2: no need to code the direction; this is inferrable from contact; handparts should be the back of the fingers of H1, not the back of the "whole hand" (which would suggest that the palm is facing up)
73	72	april	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss
74	73	archeology	Anushka	not under this gloss
75	74	area	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					For v. 2, I'd use 'whole hand' instead of just 'other hand,' which then allows you to have a starting and ending location, as is our convention for a straight movement. In this case, it starts on the 'wrist end' of the radial side and then ends on the 'finger end' of the radial side.		AREA (v. 1): mentions that this is a REGION alt.- how should this be connected/lemmatized if at all? KCH: see new convention		v.1 same sign as "CONSTITUENCY", "DISTRICT", v.2 same sign as FIELD (v.2), PROFESSION, PROFESSIONAL, CHIEF (v.1), CAREER, PURE, MAJOR (v.3)									(once we code REGION, it will need a copy indicating that it means AREA)			for v. 2: again, no 'direction' is needed -- we almost never need to code direction; see conventions document; here, I don't think there's any reason not to have the interval of contact last the whole x-slot, since both the starting and ending locations are on the hand
76	75	argue	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	the movement is specificially described at the wrist - to be coded as joint-speciifc movement?				Yes, this is a great example of definitely being joint-specific! Note that for the 'simultaneous' version of this sign, the sign is bilaterally symmetric. (Also, you could have done the alternative here just by marking that a copy was needed. That way, you'll be sure that everything is actually identical between the two signs, other than the part you intend to have different. In this case, you accidentally left off the horizontal location marking on the alternating version.)		needs ARGUMENT copy. mentions that this is a DISCUSS alt.- how should this be connected/lemmatized if at all? ARGUE (alt): still missing horizontal location marking		same sign as ARGUMENT
77	76	arizona	Anushka	not under this gloss
78	77	arm	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	do H1 and H2 maintain contact? H1 maintains contact with the arm of H2 but never the actual hand - just wanted to clarify. Also the location for H2 isn't super clear - I've coded it as default neutral space for now but it feels more so that it would be vertical-low and horizontal-ipsi				I would say they do not maintain contact, because the hands never really touch at all. Thanks for adding the location of H2 to the 'expert' list. I would also just leave out the surfaces on the other arm location, since they're not specified in the text, and again because the forearm rotates separately at the wrist than at the elbow, it's a bit unclear what the surface of the upper arm actually would be in this case.
79	78	arm_2	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss
80	79	arm_3	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss
81	80	army	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					Great job with this rather complicated sign! Just make sure that you've marked that the location is of the hands 'as a connected unit' since they're both on the left side (otherwise, because it's marked as 'both hands / contra,' this would seem like the hands are crossed).		I know our convention with "forward and back" is to code bidirectionally, but my instinct is that the tapping is the more.. salient(?) action and "forward/backward" is a description of necessary transitional movement in order to tap. but would love to hear thoughts! KCH: good point...let's check with an expert														again, I think this should be the back of the fingers, not the back of the whole hand -- but let's check with the other coders to see what they're doing
82	81	arrest_1	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					For v. 1, note that the dictionary specifies that the hand is 'at chest level' -- this is an indication that it's a body-anchored signing space location, as the dictionary is using a body location as the reference point. In this case, you can think of it like a sign in which there is contact at only the beginning of the sign (not that there's contact here at all) -- that is, it can have just the body-anchored 'chest' location for the whole sign, and the difference in the location will be captured by the movement and the relation modules. Then the same goes for the alternative version (which again, it would have been okay to just mark as a slightly adjusted copy, so that everything else is identical).		ARREST (v. 1), ARREST (v. 1 alt.): yet to be marked as body-anchored. per convention, variability should be indicated in location and movement modules. KCH: this was originally marked in the general movement module notes, but should be in the axis direction notes more specifically (but not the location module) ARREST (v. 1 alt.): Force / strong would be indicated for the first movement module. KCH: Right...this is a good example of why it's likely often better to just mark such a similar sign as needing to be copied from the base, so that all of the details get copied over, too! :)		v.2 same sign as "CAPTURE" and "CATCH (v.2)'									ARREST (v. 1), ARREST (v. 1 alt.): variability should be indicated in movement modules on axis direction
83	82	arrest_2	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss									copy sign for CATCH (v.2)
84	83	arrest_3	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss									copy sign for CATCH (v.2)
85	84	arrive	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	v.2 and v.2 alt. - unsure what stopped with a slight bounce means				As above, when the 'alternative' is so similar, it's probably faster and safer to just mark it as a copy with slight modification.		ARRIVE (v. 2): the nature of the movement (which would seem to come from the elbow as nothing like "from the wrists" is specified) may also happen distally? KCH: good point; we'll check with an expert		v.2 same sign as "ARRIVAL" Cope v.2 meaning REACH (v.1)									add "ends with bounce" to the "additional characteristics" once the 'other' option is implemented			no direction needed
86	85	art	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss							"downward" could be ambiguous- downwards towards the palm's heel or downwards in space (intuition and the image suggest vertically downwards, but I remember this has come up before as something to consider ambiguous). KCH: right, we'll check with an expert; also needs alternate ARTIST version w/ agent		same sign as ARTIST (which needs its own copy with AGENT ending)
87	86	article	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	v.1 - no clawed L in predefined handshapes - only clawed extended L				For v. 2, you were missing the hand config. :) Also, I think this is one of those signs where it's not really clear how far the hand moves / where it starts and stops. Our convention does require a starting and ending position, though, which you basically coded, but you were more specific about the starting than the ending location. The two should have the same level of specificity, and we should ask an expert how far the hand moves.		ARTICLE (v. 1): same potential ambiguity of "downward" as ART. ARTICLE (v. 2): to me this is a text/image mismatch- text doesn't describe concave/convex status of arc, while the image may suggest some twisting is also involved. KCH: all great questions to ask an expert about													v1 unsure about contact surface - tips not specified	I think this is a reasonable assumption given the palm orientation description
88	87	articulate_sign	Anushka	not under this gloss
89	88	asia	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					I wouldn't really say this needed to be coded, because it's not a normal / proper 'entry' in the dictionary. It's fine in this case because it's just fingerspelled anyway, but for other signs in these 'extra' sections of the dictionary, don't worry about including them.
90	89	ask	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	v.1- traditionally I would have coded the straight perceptual movement with the vertical and sagital movement in one module, but both movements have different movement characterisitcs. v.4 - is 'closed F' same as 'F'?				for v. 1: Yes, I think that's a reasonable solution in this case. For v. 2, note that the text actually doesn't specify a perceptual shape movement, even though it does look like it in the image -- but we should follow the text (and then ask an expert). For v. 4, yes, I think you're right that 'closed F' just means 'F' (it's not a handshape listed in the dictionary's master list!). However, even though it's called 'closed F," I think that the movement here is flattening -- it's just a matter of flexing the base joint to achieve contact between the thumb and forefinger, not true 'closing,' which we define as flexing of all the joints.		ASK (v. 1): "down" in third movement module should also be marked "variable" with "directional verb". ASK (v. 2): the text does specify that the hand changes orientations, so either wrist nodding or perceptual movement should be involved- but which? since it's marked as a directional verb, that might suggest it's perceptual movement- if so, directional verb status should be indicated in movement module. KCH: I do basically agree with everything you said here, but I think all of this was indeed marked in the 'other updates' or 'ask an expert' file. ASK (v. 3): did we decide whether signs like these are coded as Other hand>Whole hand, Other hand>whole hand + centrally in space, or in space? this came up before. KCH: Right. This is a 2HB sign with hands in the centre, so it should be 'both hands in space (centre)' and then also have an axis of relation (which was missing).											For v. 1, add 'directional verb' note to both movement directions. For v. 2, add the 'directional verb' note to the opening movement. (v. 3 is an example of a sign where we want a relation module to indicate the contact between the hands, even though it's not tied to a location module)
91	90	assembly	Anushka	not under this gloss
92	91	assign	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					While I can see how the 'forward and down' movement could be achieved with ulnar pivoting, there's nothing in the text that suggests that this is a necessary part of the sign. You've already coded it as a perceptual shape movement, so you shouldn't also code the same action with a joint-specific movement, anyway. Given that there are two components of the direction (forward and down), both should be marked as variable because of being a directional verb.		"distal" in movement module should also be marked "variable" with "directional verb". KCH: agreed; I just can't do it myself, so it was already in the 'other updates' column		needs variant: 'Motion may be repeated in a rightward sweep to indicate the number of people receiving assignments.'									Add 'directional verb' note to both movement directions.
93	92	assist	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss					v. 1 should be marked as a 'directional verb.' For v. 2, the first location of H1 can be 'heel of hand' (not 'whole hand') since the text specifies 'base of hand.' I'm also not sure whether the thumb actually gets 'surrounded' by the fingers of the other hand as you've indicated, or just makes contact at the tip -- we'll leave it underspecified for now, and ask an expert.		ASSIST (v. 1): not yet marked as directional verb. same sign as HELP (v. 1). ASSIST (v. 2): "jab" = Force / strong + Speed / fast. however, it seems like it only happens on the "back together" part of the movement, so maybe this should be Force / other and Speed / other with specifications of timing. KCH: I think we need to check with an expert, but note that if* this interpretation is correct, we'd still want to select 'strong' and 'fast,' just add the note about timing to those selections as a note (rather than choosing 'other' as the main option); the location on H2 seems more like Other hand>Hand minus fingers on the ulnar surface to me. KCH: already marked as something to check with an expert about		v.1- same sign as 'ASSISTANCE', HELP; v.1 needs variant with 'Extended A' left hand configuration									Add 'directional verb' not to direction for v. 1; for v. 2, potentially note that the force / strong and speed / fast is specifically on the upward / together movement, not the downward? need to check with an expert		v2. needs to be recoded later	I'm not entirely sure why it needs to be done later -- can you clarify? But it should have been a single relation module that has the same contact points as Loc2, and is not 'intermittent' -- just, at the beginning of x1, end of x2, beginning of x3, and end of x4
94	93	assistant	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	movement direction unspecified - image implies vertical movement				I see what you mean, but I agree with how you coded this! :)																again, this isn't intermittent contact -- it's contact at the endpoint of x1 and x2
95	94	astronaut	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss	unsure what is meant by "Agent Ending (see p. LIV) may follow."				The 'agent ending' is the sign that's like an agentive -er suffix in English ('paint / painter', 'work / worker', etc.). I think we can mark this as a sign that needs a copy that would have the agent ending attached to the base.				copy for version with Agent Ending
96	95	at	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss
97	96	athlete	Anushka	yes, but under different gloss					as above for Agent ending		sign type should specify "same HCs". also to be honest, I could use a refresher on why the location isn't coded as ipsi-close because that was my instinct based on the description. KCH: I agree here, but I also think we have not been clear up until now about how we're choosing non-default positions, so let's definitely discuss.		copy for version with Agent Ending
98	97	atlanta	Anushka	not under this gloss
99	98	attention	Anushka	yes, but under different gloss	(pay) attention				I think the hands are in space here, not actually ever touching the body, so this should be a body-anchored signing space location at the beginning, not a body location.		still currently coded as body location
100	99	attitude	Anushka	yes, exactly this gloss							would specify the anterior shoulder surface.													For the relation modules between hand1 and the shoulder, there's an overlap in x-slots between the no-contact relation module for close distance and the contact relation module at the end -- potentially problematic. Another way to code this would be each relation module occupies one half of the x-slot? I might be over-thinking on this one.	I think this is okay as is -- we often have 'overlapping' points in time, but since they're really instantaneous, I don't think it matters.