Advantages of ASL GLoss for SignWriting

[Stephen Slevinski]

Wow,

OK, I have some questions.

How many signs per minute can a native signer type using SignWriter.  What
is the curve for learning SignWriter and what speeds are possible?

I'm assuming that writing ASL Gloss is quicker.  But I'm also assuming that
reading SignWriting is easier.  I know the second because I often sign when
using the TTY.  I can not read ASL Gloss and understand very well.

While ASL Glossing may loose something in the translation, is it adequate
enough?  Because written English is not the same as an oral presentation,
yet written English is adequate.

If a long passage was written in SignWriting directly versus ASL Gloss, how
much work would be required for each, and how adequate would the resulting
SignWriting be?

ASL Gloss is a unique development in the US because of the focus on oralism,
rather than literacy.  Deaf use glossing because they know English words,
but not English grammar.  The same way that hearing use PSE: ASL sign with
English grammar.

-Stephen Slevinski
www.pudl.info

ps - sorry for the rant below, but I'm a firm believer in the value of
English.

I disagree with deaf knowing only a single language.  It is great to start
with a signed language, but not learning the native language of a country is
a big mistake (or so I believe).  To require an interpretor to get a job,
education, or even deal with a laywer is a mistake.  I believe it traps the
deaf individual.  If the deaf know only a single language, then they require
the government to make laws that require companies to hire two people to
perform a single job.  This does nothing positive for the deaf, because it
builds resentment toward them.  It also encourages the stigma that deaf are
handicapped.  I even believe that deafness should be removed from the ADA.

However, I do believe the time spent learning to lip read and voice can be
better spent on learning to read and write; both ASL and English!