[sw-l] Handwriting and idiosyncratic SW

[James Shepard-Kegl, Esq.]

I am not so certain that English writing omits irrelevancies.  Indeed, it
seems to hang on to somewhat confusing spellings out of respect to history
and tradition  -- hence "night" which I believe sounded more like the German
"nacht" at some point (I am merely guessing at the German spelling), or
"knight" which sounded more like K-NICHT.

What maintains English spelling has been the publication of dictionaries.
Thus, as word pronunciations have changed over time and place, spelling by
and large has not.  It seems to me that sign languages set down in SW will
likewise have standardized spellings.

More to the point, the beauty of SW is that it is predictable  -- and new
readers can learn the code and predict fairly closely how a sign ought to be
"spelled".  One can develop a shorthand code or adopt convenient
abbreviations, but I should think that the popularity and utility of the
system is grounded in its adherence to a code for the sake of
predictability.

-- James Shepard-Kegl


on 10/4/04 3:09 PM, Rocha at rocha at ATLAS.UCPEL.TCHE.BR wrote:

> Hi Val and all,
>
> Just to let everybody know the terms in which I am putting this issue
> of easiness of writing in SignWriting, when I discuss it here.
>
> I think that Valerie's great goal of having a highly precise visual
> writing system for sign languages amounted to the creation of what
> linguists use to call a *phonetic* system, that is, a notation system
> where every important detail of the articulation of the linguistic
> expression is registered.
>
> Our oral alphabet does not follows this line of representatin. It it
> is more of what is called a *phonological* system, that is, a notation
> system where the idiosyncratic, regional, cultural, prosodic,
> individual, momentary, etc., variations of the production of the
> linguistic expression are put aside, in favor of a standardized written
> representation.
>
> Handwriting the symbols of SignWriting may help to ease the writing of
> sign languages, but it seems to me that it will not be enough. At some
> point in the future (after the SignWriting system is well assimilated by
> everybody), people will be forced to start to establish conventions
> about what details are irrelevant in the production of a sign and, thus,
> what should be left out of the standard representation of each sign.
>
> I illustrate this in the picture that is attached to the message. From
> left to right, it shows a progressive simplification of the writing of
> the sign "house" in the Brazilian sign language LIBRAS.
>
> How far one can go to the right, simplifying the representation, is
> something to be determined by negotiation among people, and may vary
> from place to place (region, city, etc.).
>
> How near one needs stay to the left (and one can surely go into much
> more detail, like representing the full body, etc.) is also to be
> negotiated.
>
> Where will people find is the suitable intermediate point, that is
> the question.
>
> All this is not new, I remember having this kind of discussion some
> time ago in the list (if I'm not wrong). But I feel the time is
> approaching where people will have to prepare for it.
>
> All the best,
>
> Antônio Carlos
>