SLLING-L Digest - 5 Feb 1999 to 6 Feb 1999

[Tane Akamatsu]

Further to this, when I first got involved in sign language work (nearly 25
 years
ago) in the U.S., many deaf people were not familiar with the term "American
 Sign
Language" nor the abbreviation ASL.  They would sign DEAF SIGN or simply SIGN.

I don't know what the Quebecois Deaf used to say, but now I see the
 fingerspelled
L-S-Q , not SIGNES QUEBEC or some such.  (but maybe I only know the linguists?)

So it would seem that the more well-researched signed languages already have
well-established acronyms (too bad sign languages don't have standardized
 writing
systems) should stay with those acronyms, and the researchers of the more
 recently
researched languages can use whatever seems respectful to the local community.
 I
agree with others that XSL and SLX is getting too confusing.  Look at ASL and
Auslan.

As to the question of using Newkirk '86: what about the languages that have
handshapes that don't exist in that code?  Or is it more flexible than what I
remember (like SignWriting)?

I think we will be stuck with the tradition of at least using the country's
 spoken
language equivalent of "local sign language" because the signed languages
themselves have no written form.  So we have to write it in some other language;
the most logical other language would be the written form of the spoken language
of the same locale.  Mind you, we may still end up with XSL and SLX for
English-speaking countries (Auslan being the notable exception), LSX for
French/Spanish/Italian speaking places, XGT for signed languages from Germanic
countries, and a proliferation of others from non-European/American countries.
 I
kind of like the PMT for Thai and NS for Japanese.  Seems the important thing is
that we can know and remember what these acronyms are for!

I am cognizant of the fact that I have limited this discussion to a Romanized
script.  What about languages for which a standard Romanized transliteration has
not been decided upon, or places where neither the signed nor the spoken
 language
have been written?  Could happen....

My 2cents worth (taking up at least 10 cents of cyberspace).

Tane Akamatsu

Cecelia40 at aol.com wrote:

> Just a bit of an observation here....
>
> When I (a hearing person) say the words "Sign Language"  I say them as a
> compound, as a single unit, much the same way that I say "White House"  -- it
> really is not two words anymore.  It is simply the name of the language.  When
> watching American Deaf people say they ASL, or if they say "SIGN-LANGUAGE" I
> note that they are actually using a compound of the two signs.. not two
> separate signs.
>
> That is, in my opinion,  because the name of the language is American Sign
> Language...  the fact that the word Language is part of the name is just an
> aspect of this culture.
>
> The word or sign for Language may not be part of the name for other languages.
> In the example you gave, many hearing languages do not use the word for
> language to describe what they are.. English being a prime example.   However,
> if I just use the word English, out of context, then it is not clear if I am
> talking about the language or the people.   Within the context of a sentence
> "I speak English"  the role of the word English is made clear.  In the example
> you gave of spoken Thai, where the term language is required, that is, to my
> way of thinking, simply the rules of the culture/langauge  for how a language
> is identified.
>
> Now (on very shaky ground here)  I believe that there are some Native American
> tribes whose name-word for what they speak, when translated into English, is
> "Language"    If that is true, then there is some basis in the spoken language
> realm for the use of the term that means language in the name for the
> language.  (I am thinking of the Navaho, whose word for themselves  means The
> People and doesn't sound anything at all like the English word Navaho).
>
> Anyway.. that's just my two cents... hope it makes sense.
>
> Cecelia Smith  (hearing)
> Washington DC, USA
>
> In a message dated 2/6/99 11:58:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> LISTSERV at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA writes:
>
> >
> >  But, in Thai Sign, there isn't a sign for "language". This by the way is a
> >  bit of evidence that it is not "part of" spoken Thai. As in ASL, the
> country
> >  name sign is used, but in context it isn't the country, it is the "name" of
> >  the language you speak. To be clear here, I am from AMERICA(noun-country)
> >  and speak(hearing person), ENGLAND(noun-langauge name). But, a sign meaning
> >  "language" is not in the signed sentence. In spoken Thai the word "paasa"
> >  [language] is obligatory, "paasa thai", "paasa angkrit", but never "thai",
> >  or "angkrit" [England/English].