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?
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.|
[log in to unmask]
Clear writing moves business forward.
--- On Sun, 4/21/13, Adam Frost <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Adam Frost <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Handshapes used in ASL
To: [log in to unmask]
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.
On Apr 21, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Charles Butler wrote: