[sw-l] obscenities, etc.

[Charles Butler]

Just my two cents here from working with both LIBRAS & ASL,

The actual physical movement for "lesbian" in ASL is the sign "queso" [cheese] in LIBRAS, the common sign for "sex act" [vulgar] in ASL is the sign for "fist fight" in LIBRAS.  These two signs are a common misconstruance in any person coming from the US to Brazil, so it is a matter of education that we must include them in our dictionaries to show "slips of the hand" for any cross-cultural comparisons.

We can't keep the physical movement out of the Web sites as any comparison within two dictionaries will show signs that for one language are a normal part of the vocabulary, and for another sign language are obscene [meaning off-camera, not non-existent].  The common letters "F" and "T" in ASL are obscene in most Latin American countries.  We've already talked about "elder brother" in HKSL being "impudent finger" in Western countries, and "impudent finger" goes back more than 600 years in common Western usage (it was listed in a textbook for "courier" sign language printed in 1400).   The sign for "devil" [winged speech] in Monastery sign language is very close to the sign for "mother" in ASL.  We, as educators, and as interpreters, have the responsibility to know the whole vocabulary, not "shelter" the Deaf or the hearing from "real life."


Jerry Spillman <jzs at XMISSION.COM> wrote:
Dear Valerie and List,

As this is a forum, I must put in my two cents worth.  I will maintain my websites as family-oriented material, and without obscene expression as much as possible.  Just because a language contains obscenity, as all languages do, there is seldom necessity to put it to use.  There are signs for sex in it's numerous uses as a word, and there are signs for obscenities which roughly express the same thoughts in a less gentle manner.  I think the point of the discussion is not whether such terminology should exist, but whether it should become a standard of expression. Vulgarity, for example, is merely the word meaning "the common talk".  However, in my upbringing, it was not polite to speak in a vulgar manner in the general company of ladies and gentlemen.  I also understand that in some settings and with some people's culture, what may seem vulgar to "polite company" is common fare amongst them.  And as long as it stays within that culture, people are welcome to "have at it".

As educators and public servants, many of us elect to refrain from such language because it can be and usually is offensive to SOMEONE who might be present.  This varies with culture. What is OK to express in Denver, Colorado is, in many instances, absolutely NOT OK in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Let us persevere to produce language that is acceptable to all who would hear it, and know what the vulgarities are so that we can avoid their use in "polite company".  I think in this light, that there is a place for such words in a general dictionary; however, this would mandate that certain abridgement take place before providing that dictionary for children's use. Considering this, perhaps a separate dictionary of vulgarity and obscenity would serve the general good in a better fashion than placing all signs, no matter what, inside the SAME work. It would be similar to a friend of mine who teaches technical and mathematical terminology to deaf students providing just those students who will use such signs with them, rather than confusing the average person with "useless" vocabulary.

I pray that in our processes of developing and defining language,  that we learn to communicate decently and in good order while dealing and expressing ourselves publicly.  Please consider these things as you develop your dictionaries and write rules for editing.

Jerry Spillman
Webmaster, Cyberjer.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20041020/1e5dc4e6/attachment.html>