differences in fist tensions from signer to signer

[Adam Frost]

Although we could easily add the exact handshape to fit this and every other
variation of signs, we would be dooming ourselves when trying to do
standardization. :-) So, yes this is trying to find the balance of phonetic
and phonemic. When is a variation needed to be shown for meaning, or when is
it needed to just show minor non-meaning difference in production. I think
that this came up because Kelly Jo is doing a "what I see is what I write"
transcription, which is great. (Probably better to do right now especially
since there isn't much standardization in sign written spellings.) I think
that in the case of the Do-Do, the final production will have the full D
handshape because this is a story telling hence more formal. Just my
thought.

Adam

On 5/6/07, Valerie Sutton <signwriting at mac.com> wrote:
>
> Yes...that was my feeling too, but then Kelly Jo mentioned that we
> were not writing all the details, so it was just a question...and
> then the other problem is too much detail when it comes to Danish
> Sign Language fists...so it is hard to find a balance between
> ...that is why I asked...
>
> And i got the feeling that you are happy with the amount of
> handshapes we have and that maybe these new handshapes are not
> needed? See attached...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 6, 2007, at 2:26 PM, Adam Frost wrote:
>
> > 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 ;-)
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20070506/7c6a27e2/attachment.htm>