LL-L "Orthography" 2003.09.25 (12) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 25.SEP.2003 (12) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Orthography"

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Orthography
>
> this sort as a universal "scriptura franca."  If we based it on existing
> sign languages (this requiring prior universalization) and a written (thus
> ideographic) form of these (be it the currently proposed one or an
> esthetically more pleasing one ;) ), we would kill three birds with one
> stone: (1) create a universal writing system, (2) create a signed
> universal
> lingua franca, and (3) integrate communication for hearing-impaired people
> into the "mainstream" (thus breaking down barriers, because everyone would
> be able to sign and understand signing).  A moderated, assumedly
> "smaller,"
> version could be used in communication with sight-impaired
> people, much like
> those used nowadays with people that are both hearing- and sight impaired,
> and there would have to be some sort of touch-reading version of the
> "mainstream" script for hearing-impaired people.

Aren't there any deaf or blind people where you live, Ron?   :)

> Such a system could be designed to be less cumbersome and
> learning-intensive
> than for instance Chinese characters.  This could be done by
> using a limited
> number of basic signs/symbols in various combinations to convey new
> meanings.

This sounds rather like Basic English - the idea that a lingua franca can be
built up from a relatively small set of semantic units. I always think a
proper language is better - you can learn a vocabulary just big enough for
your purposes and if you ever need more, you can always learn more. It's
less limiting in the long run.

There already is an international sign language, which is done by using more
graphic signs and fewer abstract, and using the more obvious timelines and
placement principles rather than the more specialised. This means that
although to use international sign language you have to learn the
principles, signers find it very easy to understand after some practise
watching it. I've made speeches in British Sign Language that have been
interpreted live by someone else into international sign language for
international audiences, for example.

For interaction in small groups nothing formal is necessary. Usually deaf
people meeting in an international setting will just have a party with games
or suchlike to learn to communicate with each other. After a couple of hours
everyone will know a common fingerspelling system as well as the major
features of each other's languages, such as how to express time, position,
numbers and virtually the entire vocabulary of human physical actions such
as looking and walking, driving cars, and growing up, as well as ways of
describing the behaviour of important substances such as light and water.

Another helpful aspect of sign languages is that they have relatively small
vocabularies. This is because the morphology of sign languages is generally
much more expressive than that of spoken languages, and a single root sign
typically supports many inflections that in a spoken language would need
many different words to express. So your idea of using sign combinations is
already a given, though my guess is that this given goes well beyond what
you were suggesting.

So all this "pie in the sky" as you call it, already occurs amongst hearing
communities throughout the world, and as far as interactive communication is
concerned needs no codification at all. In fact I think codification would
prevent it from happening, because the real thing depends on people finding
their own learning pathways to each other through personal interaction.

But given that a international sign language is already in use, and that the
SignWriting system can support any signed language, your "scriptura franca"
is in place right now, it's just a matter of using it!

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================