Print

Print


Oh sorry - i didn't notice the thread in these emails -
thanks for the information Stuart about the book, I will try to trace it..
thanks all..
maria

> So minimalist to the point of you have to perform minimal pairs on every
> element in the system. I am beginning to see that effort in LIBRAS as we
> see comparisons of hand shapes and orientations that come from a
> linguistic point of view.
>
> Example from Eda Amorim is that the thumb in many cases is not the
> differentiator for meaning, such as the flat hand, several signs that are
> performed with the index and middle finger where the same sign exists with
> the thumb articulated and not so that complete dictionaries don't easily
> show the relation.
>
> This will be a long-term effort, and right now SW is the only way to
> clearly and quickly show the related signs.
>
> Charles Butler
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> 240-764-5748
>
> Clear writing moves business forward.
>
> --- On Fri, 3/1/13, Adam Frost <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Adam Frost <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: All Things Linguistic: SignWriting in ASL
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Friday, March 1, 2013, 2:49 PM
>
> That's the same impression I got from Robert Arnold when I talked with him
> about si5s a few years back.
> Adam
> On Mar 1, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Stuart Thiessen wrote:
> I have the book for si5s and have discussed some with Adrean Clark who
> wrote the book. Since I am interested in writing sign languages in
> general, I figured I might as well find out more about their system.
> One major difference between si5s and SignWriting is that si5s is not
> interested in being able to record all the details of the signing. Where
> SignWriting can be used to be as detailed or as simple as you want, si5s
> is intended to be as minimal as possible (or so I understand). In some
> cases, you may not be able to be as specific with si5s as you can with
> SignWriting. That's an intentional design decision. New symbols are added
> only if it is absolutely necessary to be readable. At least, that is how I
> understand the approach.
>