differences in fist tensions from signer to signer

[Stuart Thiessen]

For English, that is true unless we change to a more phonemic  
alphabet. I once toyed with Shavian as an example. Standardization  
becomes more possible, but dialect differences always create a  
problem with phonemic scripts too. So 100% standardization is not  
likely. :)

Stuart

On May 8, 2007, at 0:50, Adam Frost wrote:

> I agree, but you have to be careful to not dismiss something as an  
> informal variation of a sign that is really just a "signonym". This  
> (and the whole production variation and production meaning issue)  
> is a lot of the reason that standardization will be very hard to  
> come by. (In fact, English gets argued that it should be "better  
> standardized" as well. So I doubt that hundreds of years will even  
> be the answer to it. HA!)
>
> Adam
>
> On 5/7/07, K.J. Boal <kjoanne403 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Agreed... I believe the "phonemic" symbol is already in the IMWA...  
> the main
> question is, should it be considered a fist base, a D base, a baby- 
> D base,
> or a closed-D base?  I think the answer is the most formal sign.   
> The more
> carefully you sign it, the closer it gets to what you think you're  
> signing
> (same for speech).  So, which base does the formal sign use?  My  
> guess is,
> the D hand.
> KJ
>
> >From: "Adam Frost" < adam at frostvillage.com>
> >Reply-To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> >To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> >Subject: Re: [sw-l] differences in fist tensions from signer to  
> signer
> >Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 14:26:15 -0700
> >
> >I don't really see a reason to complicate the symbols more that is  
> needed
> >right now. Maybe later if(!) they are really needed, they can be  
> added.
> >However, I think that it would only be for detailed writing like  
> research
> >and IPA-like writing.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >On 5/6/07, Valerie Sutton <signwriting at mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>SignWriting List
> >>May 6, 2007
> >>
> >>Hello Everyone!
> >>
> >>And I hope Ingvild will help me explain this from the Norwegian Sign
> >>Language perspective...
> >>
> >>The detail of writing the differences in fist tensions from  
> signer to
> >>signer...
> >>
> >>In Denmark, and some other signed languages too, they do not seem to
> >>differentiate between a Tight Fist or an Open Fist (Circle base  
> for O
> >>hand in ASL)...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>In other words, in ASL there is a linguistic meaning difference
> >>between a tight fist with the Index finger up, and a D-hand...see  
> below
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>But my memory is, that in Danish Sign Language, they do not care
> >>whether it is tight or open...it all is the same to them...
> >>
> >>How do we handle this issue? Which symbol should be used when  
> writing
> >>Danish Sign Language, if they don't differentiate?
> >>
> >>I bring this up also because Kelly Jo mentioned earlier that there
> >>are details of fist relaxation if we were to write a native ASL
> >>signer in their exact way of signing...which means we do not have
> >>enough symbols to cover all the possible variations of relaxed fists
> >>in the current symbolset...so that is the other extreme...that would
> >>me we would have to include more symbols to show every variation of
> >>relaxation...which would then give the Danish signers a choice
> >>somewhere in the middle between the square and the circle...these
> >>detailed fist relaxation symbols can be placed in the ISWA, but it
> >>would cause a lot more symbols to be added to the symbolset...
> >>
> >>So I was going to propose that we keep what we have, and just decide
> >>on a choice of one or the other to mean a different thing, for the
> >>Danish signers...for example, they could use the basic square base,
> >>and define it as not a Tight Fist, but the basic fist that is  
> natural
> >>to their language...
> >>
> >>just like the letter A is pronounced differently in other
> >>countries...we still write A the same and define its pronunciation
> >>differently from country to country...that would cut back on the
> >>number of symbols needed...
> >>
> >>These are the issues of standardization versus a phonetic writing
> >>system...both are needed of course...
> >>
> >>Interesting topic!
> >>
> >>What are all your thoughts?
> >>
> >>Val ;-)
> >>
> >>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> RealLiveMoms: Share your experience with Real Live Moms just like you
> http://www.reallivemoms.ca/
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20070508/83a53437/attachment.html>