AW: Evolution to Simplified SignWriting

Sun Aug 11 01:31:52 UTC 2013

Hello Eduardo and sw-friends, 

I agree with ... 

At first glance it might look as if it could be a simplification to not
write the contact symbol. 

On the other hand  if you write a sign without the contact star   you as
the scribe would probably have no problem... 

This is not the case for the reader. He will hesitate .. he has do make a
decision  contact  vs. just close together 

Just like Eduarda describes perfectly I would not follow this method. I am
writing Signwriting  documents now for mre than a decade. I would not want
to write a sign without the star if I want to inform the reader that this
sign is performed with contact.  

But it is as Valerie points out every two months  feel free to write as you
want and time will teach us ... smile 

L.I.F.E. 

All best 

Stefan 

  _____  

Von: SignWriting List: Read and Write Sign Languages
[mailto:SW-L at LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU] Im Auftrag von Eduardo Trápani
Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. August 2013 01:11
An: SW-L at LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU
Betreff: Re: Evolution to Simplified SignWriting

We remove touch star on all signs that have just one contact

and hands are already close enough to show that they are in contact,

include our logo for Libras Escrita.

See below:

Imagem inline 2

First of all, I'm just a beginner.  I find this "simplification" a bit
confusing, I wouldn't know how to do the sign on the right if I had read it
alone. I mean, is it *that* obvious for everybody that the hands are so
close that they touch?

See for example the beginning of ASL for "get (receive)":

Or the one for "sign":

The hands are more or less at the same distance as in the Libras Escrita
logo, but they do not touch. So "close enough" is not a clear enough rule in
SW (and that is not an issue if we don't expect to be able to exchange and
study texts from other sign languages).

I think that in signs where hands touch but they are not right by each
other, the star should not be removed.

Imagem inline 3

For somebody that does not know the sign, it might be hard to decide if they
do or do not touch.

I didn't know about this simplified SignWriting. For movement it's ok, but I
would try to avoid removing the star unless it is completely obvious.

And, should the star be removed, I would write the hands so that they
actually touch (no space between them):

Otherwise, for the sake of simplification, the system adds a complexity,
with a not-so-clear rule (if hands in "libras escrita" touch so could the
hands in the ASL signs above), and it does no longer mirror the signs so
well. *The* beauty of SW is that you can look at it and read it (even if you
don't know the sign language involved or the sign itself).

I think that, removing the star without clear rules, makes SignWriting
evolve into a sort of abjad (consonantal alphabet) where the reader has to
provide the missing bits (in Arabic, the vowels). Meaning also that the
reader has to know the language pretty well. Reading dictionary entries from
other languages will be harder. It is evolution, but I don't know if it
makes things simpler, it surely does not for beginners like me. And we
really need a simple *and* coherent system for real adoption. I guess we've
all had our share of writing systems with rules that do not always apply,
systems where it's not enough to be native, you have to stop and think
before you write.

For other type of texts it might be safe to assume the reader is fluent in
the language and will know how to read it but for teaching and learning ...
I'd really think twice before globally removing single stars in "close
enough" configurations, or asking students to do it.

Eduardo.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20130811/c99e10e8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6625 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20130811/c99e10e8/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 449 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20130811/c99e10e8/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20130811/c99e10e8/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5337 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20130811/c99e10e8/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20130811/c99e10e8/attachment-0002.gif>