 |
 |
Forgive typos - writing on phone. But yeah, I think I was starting to annoy people! But it was quite interesting to see how entrenched an assumption it is that simplicity in a system is an inherent virtue (such that a system that permits a wide range of choice in detail is seen as flawed because the more complex end of the range exists). Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Erika <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > It's funny - I'm writing this on my phone from a Deaf studies conference at Swarthmore and in our last discussion we ended up in a discussion. Comparing Si5s with SW. People really didn't understand what SW was and I kept hijacking the conversation trying to correct misinformation. :) > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 2, 2013, at 11:38 AM, "MARIA GALEA" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> 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. >>