[sw-l] SW system type... alphabetic vs. others ( pictographic, ideographic, logographic)

Tue Jun 21 23:53:43 UTC 2005

Hi all,

I love the term IMWA for many reasons.  I'm a self proclaimed IMWA
snob.  The IMWA is a true alphabet even though the dictionary definition
of an alphabet is outdated.

*Outdated Webster's definition of Alphabet* - /the letters used in
writing a language, arranged in a traditional order./

The IMWA does not contain letters, it contains symbols.  The term
"character" is sufficient to represent either a letter or a symbol.  So
the new and improved definition of an alphabet should be...

*Alphabet*: /the characters used in writing a language, arranged in a
standardized order/.

And that's the IMWA.  Sorting a sign language dictionary is only
possible because of the arranged order of symbols in the IMWA.

As a lay programmer, most of the mumbo jumbo of academia is difficult
for me.  If you want to discuss "morphological sign primitives" I
immediately stop listening and try to figure out what you're talking about.

I prefer simple and direct terminology.  However, all of the simple
terminology is biased towards spoken languages.  This is a problem that
we do not have to  accept.

When I was discussing the ASL hand alphabet with a Deaf friend, he
immediately thought of fingerspelling the 26 letters of the English
alphabet.

Then I explained the 74 symbols of the ASL hand alphabet as a subset of
the IMWA with their own standard order.

His idea of an alphabet expanded and his respect for SignWriting
increased.  And there was pride in his new understanding.

Lucyna had a challenge for programmers.  Well, I have a challenge for
linguists.  Update the spoken and signed languages of the world without
making it more complicated.  We need to eliminate the bias against
signed languages.  This will do more for our cause than defining exact
terms that describe exact meaning using fancy Latin derivatives.  We
should have an active campaign to update the wiktionary dictionary..
(http://en.wiktionary.org)

I believe we do more if we challenge someone's preconceived idea of an
alphabet than if we try and get them to understand the terminology that
linguists use when writing peer reviewed papers.

But that's my opinion,
-Steve

Marc Girod & Anne-Claude Prélaz Girod wrote:

>Hello Tomas
>
>I don't know if you've read the work of Joe Martin who writes on the
>different notation system that do exist for sign languages... and compares
>them (Stockoes...) with SW
>(you can find his article on the web on:
>www.signwriting.org/forums/linguistics/ling008.html
>
>one of the interesting things he says is the this system is very iconic...
>because what's seen on the paper do look a lot like the sign... (this fact
>makes it realaly easy to read a document written in SW.... which is not the
>cas with a document written with Stokoe's notation)
>
>As Valerie said in a previous mail, this system is not a drawing system but
>a writing system... in oral languages... we talk about alphabetic system...
>I don'tknow what name we should use for sign languages.... but what is sure,
>exactly as you explain in your mail, is that SignWriting writes down the
>symbols which are called "chereme" (units of the second articulation of sign
>languages, equivalent of phonemes in the oral languages)
>and putting together the different symbols (the different cheremes)... you
>get a sign with a meaning... these units are, in linguistics called,
>"kinemes" (equivalent of monemes in the oral languages) and are the units of
>the first articulation of sign languages... that's quite hard to explain in
>a mail... but hopefully you'll understand what I mean!
>
>in short.... I completely agree with you... but I'm not sure about the word
>"alphabetic".... maybe it's not the way to call this writing system...
>
>Anny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>De : "Tomás? Klapka" <Tomas.Klapka at ruce.cz>
>>Répondre à : sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>>Date : Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:30:47 +0200
>>À : sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>>Objet : [sw-l] SW system type... alphabetic vs. others (pictographic,
>>ideographic, logographic)
>>
>>Hi, I have a question about type of SW writing system.
>>
>>People always tell me that it is pictographic, ideographic or ...
>>
>>I think it is alphabetic, because there is no pictogram, logogram,
>>ideogram for a morpheme.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Each morpheme (I mean sign in SW) is compounded of phonetic (cheretic)
>>symbols standardized in IMWA (and IMWA is just the alphabet). Those
>>symbols don't have meanings. So do phonems.
>>
>>/
>>Sometimes there is more phonems in a symbol, but it still has no meaning.
>>It is simillar as for example in czech letter 'á' (latin letter a with
>>Acute) which represents long vowel 'a'.
>>So there is the sound quality (written as latin letter A) and sound
>>duration (writen by Acute) - two phonems in a letter.
>>But the letter has no meaning itself. It makes the meaning if it is
>>component of a morpheme:
>>
>>czech word "ráda" - is glad, (feminine, verb)
>>czech word "rada" - advice, convocation, council, counsellor, tip (noun)
>>/
>>
>>So it must be alphabetic.
>>Is it right?
>>
>>Tomas
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20050621/deb96b93/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-3.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1716 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20050621/deb96b93/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-4.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3378 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20050621/deb96b93/attachment-0001.jpg>