I completely understand your reasoning. I honestly tried to keep that in mind while I made this list. The R with the thumb, as Cherie pointed out, was one that I felt had to be added because there was justification for it's use without alteration. I still don't see how that one sign would justify the reason of adding a split hand when there are other ways of writing that would fit it just fine.
Here's another way of looking at it. There are several accents across America that say the word spelled as bath differently. There is bath and then there is bawth. However, both spell it the same way because both would be able to read it without a problem with the spelling of bath rather than bawth since the variation is not a separate word. That is the same thing that I felt with the use of the 5-hand verses the split. I just feel that there would need to be more justification needed for the necessity of having it.
Of course, this is only to make a list of ASL only handshapes, not remove the possible use of any other handshapes. There is still the ISWA. As I mentioned before, this is just to make a book. It is true that this will lead to a possible language specific SignPuddle, but that will require some more time, discussion (like this), and observation. If there is more examples and justification for the split hand, I have no problem adding it to this list.
On Apr 22, 2013, at 4:22 AM, Charles Butler wrote:
|I understand the logic and the ease of reading. But for those who are looking at a dictionary in isolation hunting for a sign that they have seen it would be good to have that variation if they were looking for it. Writing a citation is one thing, identifying a citation in the field is another. |
[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, 11:29 PM
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: