 |
 |
I agree with everything Cherie writes with the exception of the very last lexeme. ASL? Why not BSL? Or PSL (forgive me I don't know the common indigenous abbreviation for Polish Sign Language)? While SignWriting may have first been used for ASL surely it is a script meant to write signed languages. On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Cherie Wren <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > There is a huge difference between American Sign Language and Signed > English. It sounds to me as if you are suggesting that the example needs to > be in Signed English... "a literal translation of signing." As if, in > order to understand written Chinese, we need to have an example of something > written in English... > > That is the beauty of SignWriting... That example is a literal > transcription (not translation) of how the poem is signed. Using > signwriting, I can sign a story in Polish sign Language, without > understanding a bit of it, just like I can look at written French and say > the words without understanding it. Why does it need to be in English to > introduce a script meant to write ASL? > > cherie > > ------------------------------ > *From:* George Veronis <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 2, 2011 11:12 AM > *Subject:* Wikipedia article > > I very recently started on sign language just out of interest and > curiosity. In the process of learning I discovered that signwriting exists > so I looked it up in Wikipedia. > > I don't know who wrote the Wikipedia article about signwriting but I do > have a suggested change. Since that article may be the first one for people > who are interested in learning about signwriting , I believe that it is > essential that the first demonstration should be very clear and free of > ambiguity or confusion. Cherie Wren's version of Jack and Jill is not the > way to introduce the topic. The introduction should contain a very literal > transliteration of signing. That would give a person an idea of what it is > about and how to go about it. In Cherie's poem the second line, "to fetch a > pail of water", doesn't contain the words: pail, fetch or water. I spent > quite a lot of time trying to figure out what was in that line and failed. > Cherie Wren eventually wrote to me explaining that it is a poetic version of > the verse and not meant to be a transliteration of the original. But my > feeling is that many people would have given up by that time and simply > ended up being confused about the effectiveness of signwriting. > > Mind you, I have no objection to Cherie's version, but I think that it is > something that can be accessed later, when the reader might be interested in > more cultural issues. What is needed in the introduction is something > clearer and unambiguous. By analogy I would say that it would be have been > a mistake to have Robert Frost try to instruct first graders to read by > reciting one of his poems. > > Sincerely, > George Veronis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > George > > > > -- Regards, Trevor. <>< Re: deemed!