SOON and EXPERT

[Dan Parvaz]

> Does prove always have a little bounce on the end? Or does this only occur
> when it is used as a noun (proof); that is, the bounce is part of a
> nominalizing "reduplication" (as in SIT versus CHAIR)?

(1) q[DOUBT PRO.2]. FINE! t[INFORMATION GATHER], PROVE!.
    "You don't think so? Fine -- I'll gather the facts and prove it."

I did a quickie straw poll based on this sentence signing PROVE in both
bounced and non-bounce forms. The general impression was that the bounced
PROVE was an already existing proof, whereas the non-bounce version was a
proof that the signer had yet to spell out. So there is something akin to
nominal/verbal distinction, although it sounds more like completeness.
Still and all, it feels funny to to sign something like (2):

(2) ?PRO.1 HAVE PROVE(bounced) pro.1-SHOW-TO-pro.2.
    "I have evidence to show you."

I this case is makes sense to use a true nominalized version of PROVE,
without the large arc in executing the sign and a double contact at the
end. Does anyone know of a non-phrase-final use of the bounced PROVE?

Again, no corpus, no attestations. Your mileage may vary. Void where
prohibited.

Cheers,

Dan.

PS: For the non-ASL-signers, PROVE (without the bounce) looks like this
(should be reasonably isomorphic with HamNoSys):

non-dominant hand: flat handshape, finger orientation forward and ipsi,
palm up at waist level.

dominant hand: flat handshape, begin finger orientation up, palm in near
head; swing the hand down to make contact with non-dominant hand, finger
orientation forward and contra, palm up.


____________
,,,
.. .   D A N  P A R V A Z  --  Geek-in-Residence
 U    University of New Mexico Linguistics Dept
 -    dparvaz@{unm.edu,lanl.gov}   505.480.9638