<br>L O W L A N D S - L - 26 January 2007 - Volume 06<br><br>=========================================================================<br><br>From: <span id="_user_Dutchmatters@comcast.net" style="color: rgb(121, 6, 25);">
Jacqueline Bungenberg de Jong <<a href="mailto:Dutchmatters@comcast.net">Dutchmatters@comcast.net</a>></span><br>Subject: LL-L 'Lexicon' 2007.01.26 (01) [E/LS]<br><p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2">
<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">Re: body language Ole Stig Anderson says:"</span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> Cats' and dogs' tails are parallel
to human body language, whereas sign languages are a fully-fledged languages
with words, grammar and all, which you can hardly say of body language, be it
pets' or humans'."</span></font></p>
<font face="Arial" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;">But is that not just the argument that Ron was making?
Whether it is a spoken language or a sign language, they both come at us from a
misty past whether from grunt or ear twitch. Look what came of both the grunt
and the twitch! Jacqueline<br><br>----------<br><br></span></font>From: <span id="_user_mrdreyer@lantic.net" style="color: rgb(91, 16, 148);">Mark Dreyer <<a href="mailto:mrdreyer@lantic.net">mrdreyer@lantic.net</a>>
</span><br>Subject: LL-L 'Language varieties' 2007.01.26 (03) [E/LS]<br><br><div>Dear Jonny Ron & All:</div>
<div><span class="q"><br>Subject: LL-L 'Phonology' 2007.01.25 (03) [E]<br><br></span><font face="Arial" size="2">I don't know if it's relevant here, but we know that the regular &
long austerities of silence in some of the Brotherly Orders were often
circumvented in cloister by sign language. It came to a point that the monks
could discuss the most abstruse points of doctrine or canon law thoroughly &
in feverish silence, the fevered silence of a dining-table full of men so
vigouously gesturing they looked like men in the throws of
spider-bite.</font></div><span class="q">
<div> </div>
<div>> Hmm- I thought about modern, organized sign languages and really
assumed them to be very young. Of course- I'm aware that there are very archaic
and international signs between people with communicational problems all over
the world.<br>But- how old are the first mentioned ones, in their highly
developed form? I really don't know but put them to the, let's say, last
onehundred years...!?</div>
<div> </div></span>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Also, though I know this doesn't fall into the
category of SIGN language, the Goidelic peoples could spell in silence & at
speed with their Ogham alphabet, across their noses, shins or staffs. Lovers
& cup-mates could also spell across the fingers.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">& then 'Hunters Sign' in Bushman communities
must go back to the Dawn of Man - we were hunters first. I know of a
Bushman kid who caught measles in his infancy & became deaf. H</font><font face="Arial" size="2">e never learned to speak, but the whole clan talked to him
& he talked back in Hunter's Sign. He wanted for nothing in reason. Sign
isn't limited to where to find it & who is to kill it. I believe that sign
language started not with the deaf but with men on a hunt, or women
hunter-gatherers, who didn't want to draw unnecessary attention to themselves
from the buck, or perhaps a pride of lions. We were not always perched on the
very top of the food chain...</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Yrs,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Mark</font></div>
<br>----------<br><br>From: <span id="_user_sandy@fleimin.demon.co.uk" style="color: rgb(121, 6, 25);">Sandy Fleming <<a href="mailto:sandy@fleimin.demon.co.uk">sandy@fleimin.demon.co.uk</a>></span><span style="font-weight: normal;" class="lg">
</span> <br>
Subject: LL-L 'Language varieties' 2007.01.26 (03) [E/LS]<br><br><div style="direction: ltr;"><span class="q">> From: R. F. Hahn <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com">
sassisch@yahoo.com</a>><br>> Subject: Language varieties<br>><br>> Moin, Jonny!<br>><br>> I believe that among us the issue of sign languages would be most<br>> competently addressed by our Sandy, and he usually swings into action
<br>> on weekends, thus anytime now.<br><br></span></div><div style="direction: ltr;">I'm amazed that you noticed that! Yes, I'm out most nights.<br><br>Firstly, Jonny's idea that sign languages have more onomatopoeia because
<br>they're younger. The answer is no. It's as I originally said, most human<br>discourse is about visual reality, therefore signs more often mimic<br>reality than spoken words. In British Sign Language, for example, you
<br>sign a dog by showing its paws and tongue, a cat by its whiskers, a lion<br>by its mane and so on. These are all visual onomatopoeia, although I see<br>Jonny's point that in future these might become more abstract.
<br><br>The system of classifiers in sign languages bring onomatopoeia into the<br>domain of grammar, however, and as the language develops you wouldn't<br>expect these kinds of onomatopoeia to disappear, even though they might
<br>change. For example, a car is shown as a flat hand held horizontally and<br>this is moved around somewhat like a real car (although really there is<br>a lot of stylistics in the way the movement is done, perhaps equivalent
<br>to accent in spoken languages), a person is shown as a finger held up<br>(or indeed, three people as three fingers held up!) and these are made<br>to execute whatever motions the person might be going through, and again
<br>a running animal might be shown as a finger held horizontally and so on.<br>These are inseparable from the grammar of the language and while they<br>might change, you would expect them to be replaced by more of the same.
<br><br>As for the ages of sign languages, well, judging by the some of the<br>responses so far, I suppose you may be surprised to hear that there are<br>fully-fledged, indeed highly-developed sign languages that are only
<br>about 30 years old! For example, Nicaraguan Sign Language and a certain<br>Bedouin sign language are both being studied by researchers in order to<br>understand how languages come into being spontaneously. Neither of these
<br>were invented - they just developed spontaneously over the course of a<br>few generations in societies where deaf people were originally isolated<br>due to the customs of the country (in the case of Nicaraguan Sign<br>
Language) or for geographical reasons (in the case of the Bedouin sign<br>language).<br><br>How old the more established sign languages are is difficult to know<br>because until recently sign languages were never written down and we
<br>have to rely to a greater extent on anecdotal evidence or the occasional<br>drawings or etchings. You can also look at the geographical<br>distributions of sign languages and their elements, however. For<br>example, New Zealand and Australian sign languages are both closely
<br>related to British Sign Language, while schools in which French and<br>American sign languages were used are well documented and go back<br>centuries. Martha's Vineyard Sign Language was also descended from a<br>dialect of British Sign Language (Old Kentish Sign Language), and the
<br>British politician George Downing (after whom Downing Street was named)<br>came from the same area where Old Kentish Sign Language was spoken and<br>is thought to have maintained a network of Deaf spies for their sign
<br>language abilities. Samuel Pepys described the interaction between<br>Downing and Deaf people in his diary, making it quite clear that Deaf<br>people then had a completely-developed language and the association with<br>
George Downing and the Kentish Weald takes the roots of British Sign<br>Language back to at least the middle of the 17th century, but there's no<br>reason to believe that it originates then rather than being part of a
<br>much older tradition.<br><br>Old drawings of the British Two-Handed alphabet now used for expressing<br>English in British Sign Language show that the letters Q and Z are<br>completely different from the ones we use now, while the rest are much
<br>the same. Funnily enough the signs now used for "question" and "lazy"<br>are identical to these old fingerspelling letters, suggesting that<br>modern BSL is a descendant of the sign language used by those who used
<br>the old fingerspelling alphabet.<br><br>The unusual two-handed fingerspelling system used in British Sign<br>Language is derived from a system invented by the Aberdonian, George<br>Dalgranoch. Statistical analysis suggests, though not particularly
<br>forcefully, that Dalgranoch derived some of the principles used in his<br>"glove" from the Ogham script that he saw on the standing stones in his<br>area. Ogham script itself seems to be a reconfiguration of the Roman
<br>alphabet to express it in terms of fingerings, which were used by the<br>Druids both as a memory aid when reciting poetry, and for divination. St<br>Patrick forbade this technique for divination but allowed it as a memory
<br>aid.<br><br>The use of fingerings in this way has raised speculation that the high<br>priests amongst the Druids themselves were often deaf, and indeed one<br>Druid priestess is described as having triple irises, which is a symptom
<br>of a genetic feature which is also associated with congenital deafness.<br><br>Finally there is the modern theory that sign languages came before<br>spoken languages, and that the sounds of modern languages originated as
<br>the sounds made by the different shapes of mouth that the Deaf still use<br>when signing many signs. For example, in British Sign Language, "vee" is<br>used when signing "excellent", "lum" is used when signing "disappeared"
<br>and so on.<br></div><span class="sg"><br>Sandy Fleming<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://scotstext.org/" target="_blank">http://scotstext.org/</a><br><br>----------<br><br>From: R. F. Hahn <
<a href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com">sassisch@yahoo.com</a>><br>Subject: Language varieties<br><br>Interesting responses, I must say.<br><br>Jacqueline:<br><br></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">> </span><font face="Arial" size="2">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">But is that not just the argument that Ron was making?
Whether it is a spoken language or a sign language, they both come at us from a
misty past whether from grunt or ear twitch. Look what came of both the grunt
and the twitch!</span><br><br></span></font><span class="sg">Well, yes and no. Actually, I agree with both of you, with you to a degree.<br><br>I don't believe that a dog's tail wagging qualifies as language, because I believe it's an automatic expression of emotions, much like humans laughing, smiling, weeping, ducking, blushing, knitting one's brows, etc. However, there may be some ancient link between that and actual language, perhaps connected by learned social gestures that evolved to symbols, "icons" if you will, such as shaking hands (originally to show that you don't carry a weapon), waving (originally for making oneself visible over long distances), shaking one's head (thought by some to have evolved from refusing breastfeeding), or the waterfowl's head bobbing I once mentioned (symbolizing harmlessness when approaching). Personally I believe that there's a primeval link between all this and community-specific condification of linguistic expression, beginning with body language and signs.
<br><br>The sign language among hunters Mark and I mentioned arose from the necessity to be quiet, especially while hunting on foot, which can be a very risky and dangerous undertaking. We all still resort to something like that when we need to community without speech.
<br><br>I go along with Sandy's basic premise that spoken ("verbal symbolism") began with onomatopoeia, focusing on both sound and sight. However, this goes back very far and is obscured by numerous strata of abstraction and compounding, not to mention millenia of sound shifts.
<br><br>Sandy:<br><br></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">> As for the ages of sign languages, well, judging by the some of the</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">responses so far, I suppose you may be surprised to hear that there are
</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">fully-fledged, indeed highly-developed sign languages that are only</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">
about 30 years old! </span><br><span class="sg"><br>But tell me: Were these truly out-of-thin-air inventions or did they draw from pre-existing sign language varieties? I rather suspect the latter is the case. If so, this would be cases of new code synthecization rather than of creating sign languages from scratch.
<br><br><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">> </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);" class="q">> I believe that among us the issue of sign languages would be most<br>> > competently addressed by our Sandy, and he usually swings into action
<br>> > on weekends, thus anytime now.<br>> </span><br style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">
<div style="direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="q">> </span>I'm amazed that you noticed that! Yes, I'm out most nights.</div>
<br>Well, the Kahuna (<a href="http://lowlands-l.net/treasures/kahuna.htm">lowlands-l.net/treasures/kahuna.htm</a>) isn't just a pretty face, you know. He enjoys keeping track of people's comings and goings, especially those he has inducted into the
<font style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;" face="Verdana" size="2"><i><span style="font-style: italic;">H</span>ale
hanohano</i>
(Hall of Honor) and those observes as candidates and thus holds to a certain code of conduct. Without his assistance, running the List would feel even more like herding cats (<span style="font-style: italic;">sic</span>
, Jacqueline), or in </font><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">the Kahuna's own words like <span style="font-style: italic;">laulele kauhulu `ole lau</span> ("drag-fishing for schools of surface-dwelling small-fry without having a net"). (He
<span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> awfully good with words, isn't he?)</span><font style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;" face="Verdana" size="2"></font><br><br>Me ka mahalo!<br><br>Reinhard/Ron<br>