[sw-l] carroca, ajuda-me brasilieros e brasileiras

Wed Jun 22 23:29:33 UTC 2005

frio (cold) verde (cor das plantas)

Hello Ingvald, Bill, Stefan & others,

Yes, Libras does use facial expressions as a distinguishing characteristic.  Note the minimal pair above.  Frio and verde differ, essentially, by a facial expression of chattering teeth.

Not sure if carroca has a tongue click or not, will have to ask my colleagues in Brazil.

Ingvild Roald <iroald at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
In the Norwegian SL, the normal sign for 'drive' is like 'drive a car', but
here in Bergen, the local sign is like your "carroça"

Ingvild

>From: "Bill Reese"
>Reply-To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>Subject: Re: [sw-l] 75 symbols in ASL
>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:48:51 -0400
>
>Charles, your sign
>carroça
>
>When I duplicated this, I automatically made clicking sound movement used
>to get the attention of horses along with the movement of the reins. Like
>the old westerns' "Giddyup". Does Libras use facial movements similar to
>Stefan's Mundbildschrift?
>
>Bill
>
>
>Charles Butler wrote:
>
>>
>> I just added this word to the ASL SignPuddle for "open newspaper". I
>>pulled it from Goldilocks and the Three Bears as I'm not sure that all the
>>words in Goldilocks have been systematically added to SignPuddle. Until
>>we have a good translation program from whatever Goldilocks and the other
>>stories are set in, moving all signs over at once will be a challenge.
>> By the current frequency chart, there are 75 symbols being used in ASL,
>>though with a few, we'd really have to have a strong consensus that in
>>fact they are used by more than single individuals (several are from name
>>signs). We definitely should feel like Noah Webster. An additional note.
>> Working in two signed languages (ASL & Libras), I often look at one
>>language or the other to see if the other language has the same handshape
>>being used, even in different words. Two handshapes from the seminal work
>>of the SignNet Project in Porto Alegre and Pelotas, Brazil while I was
>>working there with Marianne Stumpf come to mind.
>> This is the sign for "noiva" (fiancee) in Libras. The right hand ring
>>finger is held up by the thumb to display an engagement ring. This is a
>>"single instance" use of this handshape in all the current research in
>>Libras which was discovered by the SignNet Project team in Porto Alegre in
>>the process of translating "SignWriting for Everyday Use" into Brazilian
>>Portuguese with Libras examples which I had the honor to edit.
>> The second handshape is the "carroça" handshape, which I found by
>>inquiry quite by accident. In most major cities of Brazil there are still
>>horse-drawn carts and carriages (carroça). I asked what the sign was for
>>the cart, and this was the sign that was given.
>> carroça
>>As this handshape had not yet been used in the Libras examples, I was
>>rather pleased that I had been a part of the team when it was folded into
>>the workbook.
>> I want to make a practice of carrying 3x5 cards to record ASL and Libras
>>examples to ensure that our Puddle Dictionaries are always growing.
>> Well wishes to all.
>> Charles Butler
>>
>>
>>Charles Butler wrote:
>>
>> Comment on .lojban.
>>
>> The difficulty I have with lojban, having actually
>> looked into it as an artificial language construct, is
>> that it uses punctuation marks as letters, so it
>> actually looks ugly on the page. When every five
>> letters or so is a "." being used as a schwa or an "h"
>> it is really jarring. Far from being something I would
>> easily use and learn, as some fewer than 1,000 people
>> are fluent in the language, it fails for me because it
>> fails aesthetically. Korean, in contrast, created an
>> alphabet from pictures that come out resembling
>> Chinese characters from a distance but looking
>> entirely different as a featural alphabet when
>> examined. IMVHO, art must be a part of an alphabet,
>> or it's going to repel rather than attract.
>>
>> Charles Butler
>>
>> --- Steve Slevinski wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Stuart,
>> >
>> > I appreciate your opinion and point of view. This is
>> > one of the great
>> > features of SignWriting. It is a big tent idea. Val
>> > has invited us all
>> > to come in and play around. It is a process of
>> > discovery. Different
>> > perspectives help us learn and grow. I only hope
>> > that I do more good
>> > than harm.
>> >
>> > I understand that linguists need special terms. They
>> > need to analyze and
>> > discuss and argue about what is happening in
>> > language. I didn't mean to
>> > imply that specialized jargon should be thrown out.
>> >
>> > Upon reflection, my email was about talking to
>> > various audiences that
>> > need to learn more about sign language in general
>> > and SignWriting in
>> > particular.
>> >
>> > The primary audience I'm concerned about is native
>> > signers. We need to
>> > encourage native signers to learn about SignWriting
>> > and to ! start
>> > writing. I'm hoping that I can convince native
>> > signers to write lengthy
>> > documents using SignPuddle 2 (when it's ready). If
>> > they do, SignPuddle
>> > will prove the superiority of SignWriting for all
>> > time and it will be
>> > embraced by Deaf culture. I say that because
>> > SignPuddle will not tell
>> > Deaf what sign language is, it will show Deaf how
>> > sign language is
>> > written by Deaf writers. The ASL hand-shape alphabet
>> > has 74 symbols not
>> > because of my authority, but because that's the
>> > symbols that writers are
>> > using. SignPuddle is about reflecting language, not
>> > dictating language.
>> >
>> > The secondary audience (for me anyway) is people
>> > with deep pockets.
>> > Philanthropy is very scarce for sign language
>> > projects. Even more scarce
>> > for SignWriting projects. Small grants are a problem
>> > for most projects
>> > that ! I know of. There's not enough to go around.
>> >
>> > For people with deep pockets, you have about 1
>> > minute to generate
>> > sufficient interest so that they take the time to
>> > consider your
>> > proposition. Realistically, you have about 10
>> > seconds to get them
>> > interested enough to listen to the next 50 seconds
>> > differently.
>> >
>> > Neither of these audience is interested in the
>> > technical jargon of
>> > programmers or linguists. If you use words they
>> > don't immediately
>> > understand, you've lost their interest. I'm sure you
>> > could create an
>> > hour long presentation about the value of sign
>> > language and the
>> > importance of SignWriting, but if you confuse them
>> > with jargon and don't
>> > immediately capture their interest, you will be
>> > wasting your time and
>> > theirs.
>> >
>> > And I'm still upset about the spoken language bias
>> > inh! erent in most
>> > languages. Even the artificial language "Lojban" has
>> > a bias against
>> > signed languages. And the funny thing is that Lojban
>> > was created to
>> > eliminate cultural bias from language and test a
>> > variation of the
>> > Sapir-Worf hypothesis. However, Lojban is still in
>> > development so I need
>> > to have a chat with the organizing committee. I'll
>> > tell you how it goes
>> > later.
>> >
>> > -Steve
>> >
>> >
>> > Stuart Thiessen wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Steve!
>> > >
>> > > I understand what you are trying to express.
>> > However, like any field
>> > > of expertise, it contains technical terms to help
>> > the specialists of
>> > > the field understand exactly what they mean.
>> > Computer programmers have
>> > > their technical jargon, and so do linguists. I
>> > don't agree that we
>> > > need to throw out all the technical terms to
>> > "reduce bias." If one
>> > > reviews the research being done in sign languages,
>> > it is easily
>> > > apparent that there is a lot to learn about our
>> > ability to learn
>> > > language through either modality (speech or sign).
>> > >
>> > > Also, like any specialists, we need to consider
>> > our audience and the
>> > > purpose of our discussion. If we are discussing
>> > the proper linguistic
>> > > definition of some aspect of sign languages, we
>> > should use the proper
>> > > terms. If we are only have a "lay" discussion of
>> > the topic, then using
>> > > "lay" terms is appropriate.
>> > >
>> > > In my case, I prefer the technical term "featural"
>> > to describe what
>> > > kind of writing system SignWriting is. To me, it
>> > is the most accurate
>> > > term available for the writing system. For "lay"
>> > terms, an alphabet
>> > &g! t; may be one way to describe it, but it is not
>> > necessarily the best
>> > > technical term. If we explain the terms then it
>> > has meaning. For
>> > > hearing, once they know that the Korean writing
>> > system is similiar in
>> > > approach as SignWriting (because the symbols in
>> > the Korean system
>> > > correspond with how the sounds are produced), then
>> > that helps them to
>> > > see that SW isn't so strange after all. For ASL
>> > deaf, I tend to point
>> > > out some of the non-manual markers we tend to use
>> > in our
>> > > conversations. I explain how those can be included
>> > in our writing ...
>> > > oh, yeah and by the way, we can write the signs
>> > clearly too ;) . Most
>> > > alphabets, syllabaries, abjads, etc. are symbols
>> > that represent the
>> > > final product of the articulators. SignWriting
>> > goes one level deeper
>> > > and actually! shows the articulators in motion (in
>> > a manner of
>> > > speaking). So does Korean as I understand it or at
>> > least that is the
>> > > closest analogy we have from spoken languages.
>> > >
>> > > I'm less inclined to "throw out the technical
>> > terms". I think it is
>> > > better for us to help clarify the terms and
>> > illustrate where sign
>> > > languages are similar or different than spoken
>> > languages. Over time,
>> > > the bias will disappear. If one studies the
>> > professional literature on
>> > > sign languages, then it is next to impossible that
>> > they can truly
>> > > retain the bias against sign languages. And if
>> > they have the bias
>> > > anyway, changing the wiktionary isn't going to do
>> > a whole lot to
>> > > change things in my opinion. Personally, the more
>> > we use SignWriting
>> > > to describe sign languages and the linguistic
>> > properties of sign
>> > > languages _and_ to develop literature in our sign
>> > languages, the more
>> > > people will begin to see the value of both sign
>> > languages in general
>> > > and SignWriting as a system to record sign
>> > languages. When they see
>> > > our professional discussions of the terms, then
>> > they will be more
>> > > inclined to listen because we are pointing out
>> > clarifications in how
>> > > they use their terms rather than simply throwing
>> > out the words because
>> > > we don't like the meaning they attach to those
>> > technical terms.
>> > >
>> > > But again that's my opinion. ;)
>> > >
>> > > Stuart
>> > >
>> > > On Jun 21, 2005, at 18:53, Steve Slevinski wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I love the term IMWA for many reasons. I'm a
>> > self proclaimed IMWA
>> > > snob.! The IMWA is a true alphabet even though
>> > the
>> === message truncated ===
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20050622/5fc02d6c/attachment.htm>