Writing Number 16 in ASL

Wed Aug 22 19:09:27 UTC 2007

I am not sure. It is faster to read the 10 handshape followed by the  
6 handshape. But that isn't how I produced it. And really both are  
the formal version of 16. Just one is the slow way to produce it like  
you would in a sign language class to teach the sign itself and the  
other is what I have observed as a normal everyday production of it.  
In my opinion, we want to keep the writing as close to the actual  
production as possible.

In general, for any writing system, the best approach is to do a  
linguistic analysis that helps us see what is predictable and what is  
not. What handshapes does ASL really distinguish and what is not an  
important distinction? Then we use those handshapes as the only  
handshapes we write (except for mime or other unusual signs). But  
that kind of decision needs the linguistic analysis because we need a  
better idea of how predictable certain handshapes are and what  
handshapes are "allophones" (which simply means that even though we  
may use several different handshapes, in our minds, they might  
actually function as one handshape). For example, in English, we have  
several "t" sounds (time, button, butter, but), yet they are all  
written with a single letter. Eventually, each sign language will  
need to do the kind of analysis I am mentioning above. That will help  
them determine which handshapes are actually needed for everyday  
writing and which are not. This would form their "subset" of  
handshape symbols for everyday writing.

After saying all of this, :) I really think we need to see how other  
people sign 16. Then, we can see if more use the 10 handshape or the  
A handshape. We will also want to see if the 10 is facing the signer  
or facing the side.

Thanks,

Stuart

On 22 Aug 2007, at 13:51, Valerie Sutton wrote:

> Stuart -
> so your vote is leaving the rotation symbols out...what is your  
> vote for the handshape 10 versus A for formal page numbers on  
> documents?
>
> Val ;-)
>
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Stuart Thiessen wrote:
>
>> I personally see no problem with leaving the rotation symbols out.  
>> The palm orientations assume the rotation will have to take place  
>> anyway, so we do not lose any important information. It makes it  
>> more compact for page numbers. It would be a bit silly, but we  
>> could make the "artificial" distinction between the name of the  
>> number (with a rotation symbol) and the number itself (without a  
>> rotation symbol) ... :-D. Probably not necessary though.
>>
>> If we're taking a vote, I'd say let's try it without the rotation  
>> symbol, but accept the rotation symbol as an alternate spelling if  
>> people feel more comfortable with it.
>>
>> What do other Deaf think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> On 22 Aug 2007, at 13:40, Valerie Sutton wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Stuart Thiessen wrote:
>>>> Well, it is the 10 hand ... in concept ...  but when I actually  
>>>> produce the sign, the thumb of the 10 hand actually rests on the  
>>>> hand instead of being fully extended. In other words, the formal  
>>>> way to teach is 10+6, but in actual production (at least for  
>>>> me), the thumb of the 10 hand is not fully extended.  Does that  
>>>> make sense?
>>>> Stuart
>>>
>>> Oh yes...I fully understand that is the way you sign it...and it  
>>> is written well for that purpose ;-)
>>>
>>> But should the formal writing of the number 16, in page numbers  
>>> at the bottom of publications like the Bible, and Cat in the  
>>> Hat...should that writing be formal or informal?
>>>
>>> In other words, from a standardization point of view, for formal  
>>> writing documents, should we be writing the way one person  
>>> produces the sign, or the way the sign was built on 10 plus 6?
>>>
>>> And actually my real question was related to the Rotation  
>>> Symbol...is it really needed in the formal writing of the sign  
>>> when we can see the rotation from position to position?
>>>
>>> I wonder if these questions will ever be fully solved...there are  
>>> just so many issues involved with standardization!
>>>
>>>
>>> <Picture 1.png>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <Picture 3.png>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________
>>>
>>> SW-L SignWriting List
>>>
>>> Post Message
>>> SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>>>
>>> List Archives and Help
>>> http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist/
>>>
>>> Change Email Settings
>>> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________
>>
>> SW-L SignWriting List
>>
>> Post Message
>> SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>>
>> List Archives and Help
>> http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist/
>>
>> Change Email Settings
>> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________
>
> SW-L SignWriting List
>
> Post Message
> SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>
> List Archives and Help
> http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist/
>
> Change Email Settings
> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l
>

____________________________________________

SW-L SignWriting List

Post Message
SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu

List Archives and Help
http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist/

Change Email Settings
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l