Fw: BSL isn't English. response 2

[Philocophus]

Would anyone like to answer this e-mail?

Raymond Lee

**********************

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paulette R. Caswell"
To: "Philocophus" <Philocophus at philocophus.demon.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: BSL isn't English. response 2


> Raymond, dear, kindly explain to your readers, in a bit less emotional
> fashion, just what is a "spoken" component of a language. A language
> that is "spoken" is based on SOUNDS OF HUMAN SPEECH. Humans are the only
> species on this planet that produce the sounds of human speech. They
> produce those sounds in a strict order and according to a strict
> underlying structure. This is known as "First Articulation" in
> Semiotics. It is the level BELOW the level of words. It is what hearing
> people learn before they speak, and what deaf people must learn from
> people like Colin before they can speak (even unclearly, that doesn't
> matter). It is the underlying basis for all HUMAN language.
>
> If you are asserting that sign languages are HUMAN languages, then you
> will need to first identify a strict underlying "First Articulation"
> semiotic component for sign languages (languages based SOLELY on signs).
> You will need to identify the equivalent forms in sign language for
> vowels and consonants, consonant-vowel pairs ("CV pairs") and the
> underlying structure of how the vowels and consonants are combined, in
> order, and that order cannot be changed or altered.
>
> So, go ahead, Raymond. Give me the names of Sign Language "Linguists"
> who have identified the vowel and consonant structure UNDERLYING
> "signs."
>
> Because if you cannot do so, you are left with only a "Second
> Articulation" kind of human communication that is not recognized as a
> LINGUISTIC NATURAL LANGUAGE by professional linguists, or a HUMAN-ONLY
> language. If you cannot demonstrate a First Articulation component, you
> are simply talking about the language of apes and other lower species,
> not a language of human beings.
>
> Provide me with proof that Sign Language (i.e. BSL) has BOTH the First
> and Second Articulation functions of human-only languages. Linguistics
> only recognizes DOUBLE articulation languages as "real" languages.
>
> If you can't do it, then please just stop your vituperative diatribes
> which mean nothing at all.
>