Handshapes and systematic discussion

[Valerie Sutton]

SignWriting List
June 2, 2009

Thank you, Charles, for this message...

You are all welcome to write exactly as you choose...

I am grateful, Charles, for your written literature...both in the ASL  
Literature Puddle and the ASL Encyclopedia....

I love the history articles you wrote in the Encyclopedia ;-)

For example...
http://www.signbank.org/signpuddle1.5/searchword.php?ui=1&sgn=21&sid=16


So I hope, if I retire (or do less anyway), that I have given people a  
tool to use and talk about...

I am greatly impressed with Adam's skill and insight into writing ASL  
and it is an honor for me to work with him...

And with all of you....

Have a great day everyone -

Val ;-)

---------------




On Jun 2, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Charles Butler wrote:

> I agree with you 100% Ingrid, if the fingers are on one side for the  
> palm forward, then they MUST be on the other side for the palm back,  
> else we aren't talking a writing system based on the hands.  This is  
> something we have to develop together. No matter what we start with,  
> if we write what we see, we have to be able to write what we SEE,  
> not simply take on faith.  There are a number of handshapes that I  
> honestly think need to be looked at in the electronic form and  
> flipped, else if I put down the photograph and the graphic, they  
> don't look like each other at all, regardless of the system.
>
> A hook can go either way, but a little finger cannot suddenly be on  
> the opposite side of the hand then what it actually IS.
>
> I understand the desire, for example, to not have the thumb and  
> whatever finger NOT be relating to each other, but showing the  
> finger across the palm so that it sticks out the opposite side isn't  
> the way to go.  A hook is better.
>
> If a palm flips, then the graphic MUST flip, or it's just not doing  
> what its supposed to do.
>
> As we start getting photographs being laid side by side with the  
> graphics that have been created, I think we are going to come to a  
> MUCH BETTER consensus discussion and if that means that the ISWA has  
> to be edited, then so much the better.  All of us can be consulted  
> and come to a happy decision.
>
> Charles Butler
>
> --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Ingvild Roald <iroald at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Ingvild Roald <iroald at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: AW: [sw-l] Namibia handshape construction
> To: "SignWriting List" <sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 5:13 AM
>
> Symbols used for everyday writing may be intuitive (as most of the  
> SignWriting symbols are) or non-intuitive, like the conventions on  
> arrowheads etc. But they should not be counter-intuitive. Maybe  
> Stefan and I both think as educators, more than as system builders.  
> I find it counter-intuitive that both of the attached handshape  
> symbols refer to the right hand - my feeling is that as the hand  
> flippes, so should the parts of the symbols that represent the  
> fingers. (I know that this is not the same handshape that Stefan  
> wrote about, but it is in the same group of handshapes).
>
> Just my feeling
>
> Ingvild
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________
>
> 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