searching for some ASL signs

[Victor Brown]

Don & Theresa G wrote:

> Your description sounds like an "invented" or "ad-hoc" sign developed for
> use in the classroom.  While it does seem to conform to Battison's typology
> for ASL, I would be leery of accepting it as an ASL sign.  The "A" handshape
> alone in the sign suggests to me it is an initialized sign (although
> admittedly, the "A" handshape is one of the 5 basic handshapes).  My own
> intuition is, if one were to develop an ASL-based sign for "atom", it would
> be based on a classifier, probably using the "F" handshape and the sign
> would be more iconically representative of an atom's (or its electron's --
> are those the ones that move around the nucleus? or was that the protons?)
> movements.
>
> One point of my article was to try to discourage the use of these
> "invented"/initialized or "ad-hoc" signs, since they are not understood or
> known outside of the limited classroom community, and the students don't
> learn to use the spelling of these words in the natural context, or cannot
> spell the words when the sign is not understood by a conversational partner.
>
> --Don Grushkin

Don,

While I agree with what you mention as the point of your article, it struck me
 that you
parenthetically mentioned that you yourself don't recall the difference between
 electron, proton,
nucleus. So, why then are you requiring that a new-sign not be labeled a sign
 until it is know
outside the limited classroom. I'm curious, where else you might talk about
 atoms, electrons, etc.
Or where you think Hearing or Deaf people are using such vocabulary.

My point here is that at times we who study such things tend to place
 restrictions on labeling
something a sign when in real use it is accepted by those who have use of it.
 Albeit in a classroom,
office, etc. I know this to be true of linguistic sign vocabulary. Of which I
 would not just throw
out into a conversation (with a Deaf person) any more than I would while
 chatting with my parents.

I appreciate that your institution favors the use of classifiers. I think more
 of this should be in
use. But I have two questions. Well these are questions to all of you I guess,
 not only to Don.

If you use "F" for 'atom', then what do you use for 'electron', 'proton', and
 'nucleus'? (BTW, the
proton and nucleus are in the center, "stuck" together, the electrons float
 around them, in circles
of valence (new sign needed). And as the number of electrons increase the number
 of protons
increase, therefore in virtual-space the use of classifiers will need to allow
 for growth. I know
this because I've interpreted this very subject.)

Second, when using a classifier, where is the noun form of 'atom' in the
 utterance. It wouldn't be
acceptable to just use the "F" classifier without identifying it in some way.

So, what I'm thinking is that we are back at, What is the _SIGN_ for 'atom',
 'electron', etc.?
I'm not truly looking for a sign for 'atom' in the way that Richard originally
 asked. I'm interested
in how language users invent new signs without violating the requirements of the
 language
(phonology, morphology, syntax, etc.).

Sort of, right, wrong? What?
These are my questions about Inventing new lexical items.

Good Day,
Victor


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signling.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 360 bytes
Desc: Card for Victor Brown
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/19991112/8eaafa95/attachment.vcf>