[sw-l] Handwriting and idiosyncratic SW

[Antonio Carlos da Rocha Costa]

Hi Sandy,

   Good point! Counting symbols seems to be a good way of comparing the 
complexity of writing in two different alphabets.

   What I was refering to, however, is another point: how many different 
ways there are to write the English words you used? And how many 
different ways there are to write the signs you used?

   I bet there is just one single way to write each English word :-) But 
each signs, you may probably write in much more than two ways. To start 
with, many signs are as clear when written from the back of the signer, 
as when written from the top of the signer. And you always use some 
idiosyncratic criteria to eliminate symbols that could well be added.

    Look at the sign for DEAF in LIBRAS. Any of them is correct (as far 
as I can sign it, and write it). Which one is to be the preferred one? 
Which of them to put in a dictionary, to be automatically retrieved? Or, 
translated to another language? Or for the purpose of documenting the 
sign linguistically?

    When we start to study Valerie's manual, we tend to adopt implicitly 
here criteria for the simplification of signs. We tend to imitate her. 
But when we are faced with new signs, which Valerie has not written yet 
(like when you deal with a language other then ASL), or when somebody is 
learning SignWriting from another source, different from Valerie's 
stuff, then one faces the problem I'm referring to. (By the way, it is 
very interesting to observed the Deafs discussing hours on what is the 
best way to write a sign they have never signed before: it's a social 
negotiation! For every choice, there is always someone disagreeing for 
the lack of some aspect of the sign, or for the excess of unecessary 
symbols!).

    And when one faces the problem of teaching young children, one has 
always the problem of which is the right balance between detail, 
easiness of writing, and easiness of reading. Again, it's a negotiation, 
between teacher and children, and between children themselves.

    Take this to the scale where many schools, in different parts of the 
country, are starting to write sign language, and we can see the size of 
the problem Deaf people have ahead of them, regarding the problem I was 
mentioning, of standardization of the writing of signs.

    All the best,

    Antônio Carlos


   All the best,

   Antônio Carlos


   That was my point.

   All the

Sandy Fleming wrote:
> Hi All!
> 
> Antônio Carlos wrote:
> 
> 
>>    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 decided to translate the BSL potted autobiography I wrote into
> straightforward English to make a comparison. In the English I counted 42
> words but in the SW BSL I counted only 23 signs. That's really about the
> nature of the languages, so we can't change that - but it does show that
> although signs may be more complicated to form than words - eg, there's
> orientation and suchlike to think about - there are only about half as many
> of them.
> 
> Ignoring punctuation and spaces, in the English I counted 166 letters, but
> in the SW BSL I counted only 111 symbols. That was counting each head and
> handshape as a single symbol (plus each arrow, contact symbol &c), but
> counting smaller details doesn't make a huge difference. For example, if I
> add a count of the number of symbols making up a facial expression, counting
> each eys separately and puffed cheeks and suchlike, it still only comes to
> 127 symbols.
> 
> Admittedly handshapes can be more complicated to write than letters, but not
> by as much as you might think, once you're used to writing them properly (ie
> as in Val's block printing manual). Roman letters are _also_ complicated,
> we're just so skilled at writing them that we forget that they're not so
> simple when starting out!
> 
> So with this preliminary examination I tend to conclude that the actual
> amount of writing currently required for SW BSL versus alphabetic English is
> comparable, and there's no need to go overboard with trying to simplify SW.
> 
> For handwriting, all that I think is required to put SW on a par with the
> Roman alphabet is:
> 
> 1. people to reach the same writing proficiency in SW as in oral alphabets;
> 
> 2. simplification of some very common symbols that take a lot of strokes,
> for example, the asterisk and the three arrows representing a shaking
> movement. The three arrows probably work just as well without the
> arrowheads, and I'm trying out practicing writing something cursive that
> _looks_ quite like an asterisk at the moment (see attachment ;)
> 
> I've a feeling the ideas Val is going to put down in her forthcoming
> handwriting manual will go beyond this, so I'm quite content with SW as it
> is (or will be when that manual comes out!  :)
> 
> Funny thing, though - I used to think the "flat hand" shape was the real
> bugbear of the SW system, but now I've written it so often it doesn't seem a
> problem any more.
> 
> Sandy
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
Antônio Carlos da Rocha Costa
Escola de Informática - UCPel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: surdo-variacoes.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3342 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20041006/8a813aff/attachment.gif>