left, right and together arrows

Ingvild Roald iroald at HOTMAIL.COM
Sat Mar 11 13:14:59 UTC 2006

The difference between my number one and my number three is that in the 
num,ber one, the two paths overlap, the two hands are apinting the same 

The number three is that the two hands moves as a unit, 'holding something' 
between them - the feeling is that what 'really' is moving is the 'thing'.

So I would not write POSSIBLE with the general arrowhead - the two hands are 
two hands, there is no 'thing' that moves, and the sign is not cluttered by 
the two sets of arrows.

Have sent another comment through signmail


>From: "Valerie Sutton" <sutton at signwriting.org>
>Reply-To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>Subject: Re: [sw-l] Re: left, right and together arrows
>Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 07:04:07 -0800
>SignWriting List
>March 10, 2006
>On Mar 10, 2006, at 3:38 AM, Ingvild Roald wrote:
>>For years we in Norway have been using the 'together' arrow when  the two 
>>hands are moving as a unit, even if they are not touching.  This will be 
>>when the hands are in certain classifier shapes, and  what is 'really' 
>>moving is the thing that the hand holds between  them. Just general 
>>'paralell' is not enough for our use of the  'both' arrow (sorry Stefan, I 
>>know I have written some signs  violating this rule, as you have pointed 
>>Personally, and with at least some deaf Norwegian signers behind  me, I 
>>feel that the 'togheter' arrow should be used (prioritized list)
>>1) when the two hands are painting the same route, contact or no  contact
>>2) when the two hands are moving in contact, even if the routes do  not 
>>3) when the two hands are moving as a unit, as in some classifier  signs, 
>>even if they are not touching
>>4) when the sign would otherwise be hard to read because of  crowding of 
>Hello Ingvild, Stefan, Charles, Philippe and Everyone!
>Thank you for your ideas above. Perhaps for Norwegian Sign Language,  where 
>you do not have large dictionaries already created, this might  work fine. 
>This is similar to the way the Danes use the arrows...I  think...I am not 
>sure...so that Scandinavia would be similar...
>For writing ASL, this would be an enormous change. Hundreds, perhaps  
>thousands of signs would have to be changed in all our  publications...so I 
>am not going to force ourselves to re-write  everything...if we get new 
>rules, we need to make them a choice and  not mandatory...We could simply 
>relax the current rules to include  certain exceptions...and I could teach 
>the old and the new in our books.
>Just your number 1 would change hundreds of signs in ASL...I would  assume 
>you would write the attached sign with general arrows? What is  the 
>difference between your number 1 and number 3 above?

><< possible.gif >>

More information about the Sw-l mailing list