<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">For English, that is true unless we change to a more phonemic alphabet. I once toyed with Shavian as an example. Standardization becomes more possible, but dialect differences always create a problem with phonemic scripts too. So 100% standardization is not likely. :)<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Stuart</DIV><DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On May 8, 2007, at 0:50, Adam Frost wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">I agree, but you have to be careful to not dismiss something as an informal variation of a sign that is really just a "signonym". This (and the whole production variation and production meaning issue) is a lot of the reason that standardization will be very hard to come by. (In fact, English gets argued that it should be "better standardized" as well. So I doubt that hundreds of years will even be the answer to it. HA!) <BR><BR>Adam<BR><BR><DIV><SPAN class="gmail_quote">On 5/7/07, <B class="gmail_sendername">K.J. Boal</B> <<A href="mailto:kjoanne403@hotmail.com">kjoanne403@hotmail.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <BR>Agreed... I believe the "phonemic" symbol is already in the IMWA... the main<BR>question is, should it be considered a fist base, a D base, a baby-D base,<BR>or a closed-D base? I think the answer is the most formal sign. The more <BR>carefully you sign it, the closer it gets to what you think you're signing<BR>(same for speech). So, which base does the formal sign use? My guess is,<BR>the D hand.<BR>KJ<BR><BR>>From: "Adam Frost" < <A href="mailto:adam@frostvillage.com">adam@frostvillage.com</A>><BR>>Reply-To: <A href="mailto:sw-l@majordomo.valenciacc.edu">sw-l@majordomo.valenciacc.edu</A><BR>>To: <A href="mailto:sw-l@majordomo.valenciacc.edu"> sw-l@majordomo.valenciacc.edu</A><BR>>Subject: Re: [sw-l] differences in fist tensions from signer to signer<BR>>Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 14:26:15 -0700<BR>><BR>>I don't really see a reason to complicate the symbols more that is needed <BR>>right now. Maybe later if(!) they are really needed, they can be added.<BR>>However, I think that it would only be for detailed writing like research<BR>>and IPA-like writing.<BR>><BR>>Adam<BR>><BR> >On 5/6/07, Valerie Sutton <<A href="mailto:signwriting@mac.com">signwriting@mac.com</A>> wrote:<BR>>><BR>>>SignWriting List<BR>>>May 6, 2007<BR>>><BR>>>Hello Everyone!<BR>>><BR> >>And I hope Ingvild will help me explain this from the Norwegian Sign<BR>>>Language perspective...<BR>>><BR>>>The detail of writing the differences in fist tensions from signer to<BR>>>signer... <BR>>><BR>>>In Denmark, and some other signed languages too, they do not seem to<BR>>>differentiate between a Tight Fist or an Open Fist (Circle base for O<BR>>>hand in ASL)...<BR>>><BR>>> <BR>>><BR>>>In other words, in ASL there is a linguistic meaning difference<BR>>>between a tight fist with the Index finger up, and a D-hand...see below<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>But my memory is, that in Danish Sign Language, they do not care <BR>>>whether it is tight or open...it all is the same to them...<BR>>><BR>>>How do we handle this issue? Which symbol should be used when writing<BR>>>Danish Sign Language, if they don't differentiate? <BR>>><BR>>>I bring this up also because Kelly Jo mentioned earlier that there<BR>>>are details of fist relaxation if we were to write a native ASL<BR>>>signer in their exact way of signing...which means we do not have <BR>>>enough symbols to cover all the possible variations of relaxed fists<BR>>>in the current symbolset...so that is the other extreme...that would<BR>>>me we would have to include more symbols to show every variation of <BR>>>relaxation...which would then give the Danish signers a choice<BR>>>somewhere in the middle between the square and the circle...these<BR>>>detailed fist relaxation symbols can be placed in the ISWA, but it <BR>>>would cause a lot more symbols to be added to the symbolset...<BR>>><BR>>>So I was going to propose that we keep what we have, and just decide<BR>>>on a choice of one or the other to mean a different thing, for the <BR>>>Danish signers...for example, they could use the basic square base,<BR>>>and define it as not a Tight Fist, but the basic fist that is natural<BR>>>to their language...<BR>>><BR>>>just like the letter A is pronounced differently in other <BR>>>countries...we still write A the same and define its pronunciation<BR>>>differently from country to country...that would cut back on the<BR>>>number of symbols needed...<BR>>><BR>>>These are the issues of standardization versus a phonetic writing <BR>>>system...both are needed of course...<BR>>><BR>>>Interesting topic!<BR>>><BR>>>What are all your thoughts?<BR>>><BR>>>Val ;-)<BR>>><BR>>><BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________ <BR>RealLiveMoms: Share your experience with Real Live Moms just like you<BR><A href="http://www.reallivemoms.ca/">http://www.reallivemoms.ca/</A><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>