AW: [sw-l] Remove using 5-hand or heel

Fri Dec 15 00:34:39 UTC 2006

:-) That is interesting. Philip and I were feeling the same way. We 
like the heel where it makes sense. Sometimes a top-view is helpful 
too.

Personally, like I mention below, I wonder if there is any reason why 
we couldn't do this and consider it the same handshape but different 
symbols as related to the orientations.

Wall: 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedGraphic9.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 312 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20061214/d6efc915/attachment.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedGraphic10.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 312 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20061214/d6efc915/attachment-0001.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedGraphic11.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20061214/d6efc915/attachment-0002.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------

Floor: 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedGraphic12.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20061214/d6efc915/attachment-0003.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedGraphic13.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20061214/d6efc915/attachment-0004.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedGraphic14.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20061214/d6efc915/attachment-0005.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------

Does this make sense?

Stuart

On Dec 14, 2006, at 18:07, Shane Gilchrist O hEorpa wrote:

> as a native signer, I can understand the 'heel' a lot more than the 
> top-view.
>
> I can see why it is easier for people whose first language isnt the
> signed language - to understand the top-view.
>
> Maybe you can ask a few fluent signers to see what they think?
>
> Shane
>
> On 14/12/06, Valerie Sutton <signwriting at mac.com> wrote:
>> SignWriting List
>> December 14, 2006
>>
>> See Val's message below...
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2006, at 12:35 PM, Stuart Thiessen wrote:
>> > Here's a thought. Should we just replace the floor orientations of
>> > the "5" hand with the heel symbol? Will we really need to use the
>> > floor versions of the "5" handshape where we couldn't use the heel
>> > handshape and the wall versions of the heel handshape where we
>> > couldn't use the "5" handshape symbol? I'm really just focusing on
>> > the base shape itself. Thanks, Stuart
>>
>> -----------
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2006, at 12:39 PM, Stefan W?hrmann wrote:
>> > Hi Charles and sw ?list, I agree with what Charles said.From my
>> > point of view there is no need to add this "Heel of Hand" symbol in
>> > any spelling that is possible to write with the flat hand parallel
>> > to the floor.
>> >
>> > There are two reasons ? first of all I would love to keep the
>> > symbol-set at a minimum size  -  second: it is what Charles said ?
>> > the more the brain has to work in order to identify similar symbols
>> > as different the more difficult these spellings are to read. Well ?
>> > if there are new handshapes in other cultures ? like we find in the
>> > EMA ? no problem to accept that new symbols are needed.
>> >
>> > Perhaps this "Heel of hand" symbols offers some advantage in quick
>> > handwriting ? I would understand that ?  and of course everybody is
>> > free to develop his own style of writing keeping in mind that his
>> > "readers" will have no trouble to read the written documents
>> > without any problems ...
>> >
>> > Stefan ;-)
>>
>> ---------
>>
>> Hello Everyone, Stefan and Charles, Stuart, Philippe and Adam!
>>
>> I think all of your comments and opinions are excellent and all of
>> them are true! I agree with everything you said ;-))
>>
>> So here is a summary:
>>
>>
>> HEEL OF HAND
>>
>> 1. The Heel of Hand symbol already exists in the IMWA. It is in the 5-
>> Hand section. I plan to make it a little more rectangular, to make
>> sure it does not get confused with a fist...but we are not adding any
>> new symbols to the IMWA...because the Heel of Hand symbols are
>> already there.
>>
>> 2. No one has to use the Heel of the Hand. That is each writer's 
>> choice.
>>
>> 3. When printing by computer, most people will probably choose the
>> Top View. That is fine. It is accurate, and we all know the Top View.
>>
>> 4. Regarding printing by computer....There is one position that the
>> Top View cannot write well....when the hands are at an angle, like
>> the sign for BOAT or a HALF-OPENED-BOOK. In those rare cases, I like
>> the Heel of Hand better than the detailed 10 palm facings...but
>> again, it is not required. We can write BOAT without any angle and
>> assume knowledge of the language...
>>
>> 5. The Heel of Hand is good for Handwriting. That is how it was
>> developed. When we wrote by hand from 1974-1984, before
>> computers....that was when the Heel of Hand was simply the Front View
>> of the Flat Hand, and we had no Top View. Top View was developed when
>> we got computers. The Top View is harder to write by hand...
>>
>> So Stuart and Philippe - since you are working on Handwriting, I
>> understand your desire to write by hand with the Heel of Hand
>> symbol...and Charles and Stefan...go right ahead using the Top View!
>>
>> And Adam, I will make the symbol for rectangular and let's see if it
>> is more readable...
>>
>> What is nice about this, is now you will be able to read our old
>> documents from the 1980's because now you know that symbol!
>>
>>  From an historic point of view, this is not adding a new symbol, it
>> is simply acknowledging an old symbol that was used for 15 years of
>> handwriting...
>>
>> This has been great fun!
>>
>> Val ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>