I need an arrow

Stuart Thiessen 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 
> Cherie's
>  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? 
> I
>  thought this might help to keep the emphasis of the individual within 
> a
>  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 
> whines::

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 mailing list