I need an arrow
sw at PASSITONSERVICES.ORG
Wed Jun 21 18:51:01 UTC 2006
On Jun 21, 2006, at 13:39, CWren at doe.k12.ga.us wrote:
> Strange! I loaded one of Cherie's versions into SignMaker to adapt it
> to an alternative I thought of and when it saved, it overwrote
> mainstream_2. I was intending mainstream_6 and though it would
> automatically write it in as #6 when I saved it as mainstream. I'm not
> sure why it didn't. (Sorry, Cherie!)
> No problem... Too many mainstream kids anyway... (joke)
;) As someone who did experience mainstreaming, I understand. ;)
> Anyway, I wanted to suggest this alternative in the spelling like in
> the attached image. This keeps the handshapes apart. With the ending
> position, I don't know if we need athe twist on the arrow since the
> change in handshape already indicates that. Also, I think the surface
> symbol is useful here to show both hands, but you still know they are
> on top of each other. Finally, I sense more of a ending rub than an
> ending touch, so I replaced the touch with a rub. What do you think?
> thought this might help to keep the emphasis of the individual within
> group that the sign is clearly emphasizing.
> As to the rub-- I've seen it signed two ways: one, the hands contact
> early in the 'merge' and they 'rub' into final position: and two, the
> hands stay separate till the final position, when contact is made. I
> tend to sign it more the second way, you must sign it more the first
> way. ::smile:: So, they're both right?
Hmm ... if you have seen it the second way, then both are right. In
Iowa, I haven't seen much of that second variant yet ... so far.
> As to the surface symbol-- I asked about that one a long time ago, in
> regards to the sign "English," which I couldn't make sense of in
> something I was reading, because the handshapes were on top of each
> other. At that time, I was told that the surface symbol was pretty
> much used only in research, not in everyday writing. So I have
> avoided it ever since. You are confusing me now... ::holds head and
Sorry! :) No confusion intended. My approach to writing basically uses
any and all symbols available depending on what I need to make the sign
clearest. If it is clearer to use the surface symbols, then I will.
Sometimes, it can be overkill which is where research would probably
use it because research requires that strict detail that everyday
writing might not. In this case, with the 1 hand so covered up, it just
seemed like the best approach in this situation.
So now we have examples of 2 interesting variants noted in our
dictionary plus the "standard" sign. That is more than gloss could do.
This is a good example of where glossing would struggle to make the
distinctions if we were writing about these signs and the change in
meaning introduced by the 2 variants. Perhaps, even a line drawing
might have some difficulty making the distinction. Hmmmm.....
More information about the Sw-l