LL-L "Orthography" 2005.05.12 (10) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 12.MAY.2005 (10) * 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: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
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" [E]

> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>
> Subject: LL-L "Orthograohy" 2005.05.03 (03) [E]
>
> I assume signed languages of the Lowlands area could also be
> considered lowlands languages, in a wy, so I assume there is no
> problem with discussing them on-list, although I think any extensive
> or detailed or complex dialogue regarding signed languages belongs on
> a different list, or off-list.

I agree that specialist discussions on sign languages don't belong on the
list, but they're just as much a part of Lowland culture as, say,
"Delectables". Just as long as we don't turn the list into a cookery forum,
we should be OK  :)

I thought, anyway, I'd answer some of the orthography stuff since some of
the comments made so far draw nigh to an interesting point of what an
orthography should be.

> system". Actually, Stokoe doesn't say what he intended it to be. The
> actual symbols it uses aren't exactly easy to remember unless you are
> familiar with the ASL fingerspelling alphabet, but the same is true in
> theory with associating a symbol with a sound for writing spoken
> languages.

Oral languages are highly coded - there's little relationship between the
sounds and the things they represent. There are also relatively few phonemes
in a spoken language, and these are arranged in a linear fashion. So a
highly coded, linear script is quite natural and there is no real problem
with the written symbols also being highly coded.

Sign languages are not so highly coded. Much of sign language is a graphic
representation of the reality it represents. Therefore we have to consider
the possibility that a graphic script is the most natural for sign
languages. It's an interesting question, though unanswered as yet.

> Also, Stokoe text processing on computers is not headachingly-complex
> as is SSW (you can't use SSW in MS Word, on webpages it needs to be an
> image or you have to download a special plugin for your browser, etc),
> and the actual system is less "cluttered" looking.

This is a current problem with SignWriting software - the user interfaces
are just badly designed. I'm working on a new kind of user interface now
which should make it much easier. Interestingly, when programming this user
interface I quickly started to associate features of SignWriting with the
simple key sequences I was using to type them. This kind of SignWriting
_can_ be typed as a sequence of ASCII characters, but whether we'd want to
read and write it that way is a question that can only be answered in the
future!

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Orthography

Thanks, Sandy.

Let me ask you and others a much more basic, probably "ig-nurnd" question.
Is there in sign language an equivalent of what in phonology is the
"phoneme" and in other types of orthographies the "grapheme," namely a most
basic unit from which variants are derived by rule?  If there is, do you
call it "grapheme" as well, or is it something like *"iconeme"?  In other
words, do you follow the terminology used in reference to related systems?

Thanks.
Reinhard/Ron

==============================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.
=======================================================================