Handshapes used in ASL

Mon Apr 22 11:43:11 UTC 2013

I have been using the symbol frequency for the LIBRAS puddle to create an ordered dictionary. It is a challenge. Here is a sample (I'm laying it out as duplicate dictionaries side by side for publication). 

Charles Butler

chazzer3332000 at yahoo.com

240-764-5748

Clear writing moves business forward.

--- On Mon, 4/22/13, maria galea <signwriting.maria at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

From: maria galea <signwriting.maria at GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Handshapes used in ASL
To: SW-L at LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU
Date: Monday, April 22, 2013, 4:28 AM

Interesting study Adam! -this is precisely what I did for maltese sign language. I also did the frequency counts for the active literature 
puddles of other languages to gauge how frequently symbols are used and to show that the spellings of signs tend to vary at times with little changes in handshapes (and this may show that the different choices of similar but not exact handshapes is phonetic not phonological)

Can I ask why you are doing this? Will you be writing something about it - if so, and if there's time, I will include your work in my work..
Thanks,
maria

On 22 April 2013 05:29, Adam Frost <icemandeaf at gmail.com> wrote:

The question is does it really matter to the meaning if it is split or spread into a full 5-hand. The reason I say this is because I have seen people who sign the same sign between the index and middle fingers rather than the middle and ring. You could also argue that it could be done where it is between the ring and baby finger to mean a break after the middle of the period. By having it a 5-hand, all would be possible and read very easily. I don't know if a spilt flat hand that is only used in this case would be worth it to make it really necessary. Also, is it really a tight split or could it also be a relaxed 5-hand that looks like it is closed in a split?

I guess what I am saying is that if this were the only time that this would be used in ASL, it is really necessary to have it if it could be read just as well with the 5-hand?

Adam
On Apr 21, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Charles Butler wrote:

But the hand is flat and split, not split into five fingers. That's why I look at it differently. It's not a flat hand and an open 5 hand.

Charles Butler

chazzer3332000 at yahoo.com

240-764-5748

Clear writing moves business forward.

--- On Sun, 4/21/13, Adam Frost <icemandeaf at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

From: Adam Frost <icemandeaf at GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Handshapes used in ASL
To: SW-L at LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU

Date: Sunday, April 21, 2013, 11:10 PM

I was thinking about the same thing when I was looking at that handshape. The reason I didn't add it is because I could write it like this and not need that symbol.

Adam
On Apr 21, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Charles Butler wrote:

How about this one, the split FIVE hand. This handshape is used for the same meaning in Brazil. 

Charles Butler

chazzer3332000 at yahoo.com

240-764-5748

Clear writing moves business forward.

--- On Sun, 4/21/13, Adam Frost <icemandeaf at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

From: Adam Frost <icemandeaf at GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Handshapes used in ASL
To: SW-L at LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2013, 10:27 PM

I have been looking at the Symbol Frequency in SignPuddle to see what handshapes would truly be necessary in ASL. What I did was I added symbols with high
 frequency automatically and then looked at the handshapes that had a low number to judge if the signs written could be written with or with a different symbol from my personal experience. Below is the list that I have come up with. I was quite amazed that there were only 83. Are there any handshapes that you feel I might have errorously ignored or overzealously
 added?
Adam

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20130422/d95284b3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DPL2013-intro-final.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 262656 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20130422/d95284b3/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DPL2013-1-final.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 167424 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20130422/d95284b3/attachment-0001.obj>