Well, thatís an interesting thought. First let me ramble a little. :-)
Letís take these English words for example. In, inside, and Ina. You would think that in and inside would be close because the meaning are similar and in- is part of the word of inside. But Ina comes between the two. Ina doesnít even have the similar meaning and doesnít have in- as the make up of the word. There is nothing before the A in Ina to say that it isnít related to in or inside. It doesnít spell out as In(not in-)a.
So yes, A-B does come before A-B-C. But what you have is actually A-B-C-D-F coming before A-B-D-F where D and F are the second syllable. If we were to have another symbol for no contact (N), then we would have. A-B-C, A-B-C-D-F, A-B-N, A-B-N-D-F.
Letís use ASL signs to illustrate. EAR and DEAF both with and without contacts. The ordering as it stands now would be EAR without contact, EAR with contact, DEAF with contact, and DEAF without contact. (So, ďno contactĒ isnít always last.)
If you were to add a non-contact symbol that would come before contact in the Symbol Sequence, then the order would be EAR without contact, DEAF without contact, EAR with contact, and then DEAF with contact.
If you were to add a non-contact symbol that would come after contact in the Symbol Sequence, then the order would be EAR with contact, DEAF with contact, EAR without contact, and then DEAF without contact.
I would personally not follow either of those ordering well. You may be thinking that there is no contact, so that is important to look up, but you could say that there is no non-dominant hand and that is important to look up as well. I am personally thinking of what a sign has rather than what it doesnít have because there are a lot of things that signs donít have and it would make you crazy trying to place in fillers for that item.
Letís look at in, inside, and Ina again. I could say that there is no vowel after ďinĒ for in and inside, but not Ina. That would just be an observation I would make rather than suggesting that there should be a symbol (%) to signify that there isnít a vowel after a consonant because that would mean that the spellings would have to change to in%, in%side, and Ina.
So I guess Iíve truly rambled. :-) Regardless, I hope you understand why I donít think it is a problem that there isnít something saying there is no contact from a spelling viewpoint. From an analytical view, I am sure that it is interesting. But we arenít talking about sorting for a scientist, we are talking about people looking up words/signs for everyday use. I donít think most people would worry if there was a contact or not. If there is a contact, ok. If there isnít, why would it come to mind?
This is exactly what I am looking at Adam.
But shouldn't NO contact come before contact. There is no contact so shouldn't NOT come before some, just like
A-B comes before
A-B-C with C being contact?
There is nothing there, this is the principle I am trying to establish, NO contact at all should come before ANY contact. It's a syllable division after the face that presumes something. If there is no contact, there is no contact, so why should not NO contact come before SOME contact.
If I'm looking for something in a normal English dictionary I don't look for
I'm looking for actual thinking, not just a string of numbers.
I'm I'm looking up something, and I stop and think, I have that index finger, it's up near my face, so that should be the first thing I see, up near face with no contact at all. It's not contacting, so it is NULL, it is not CONTACT as first, it is NOTHING as first.
Yes, I am asking for a change in the Handshape-Location-Movement order for times when there is NO contact to be first. Location is location, but NO contact should not be last, it doesn't' seem logical to me. Having ALL touches before NO touch at all doesn't seem to make any sense. I break the syllable after the location. What is happening. It's a syllable break, ask the question WHAT IS HAPPENING? Is there facial contact, yes or no, NO comes first, not last. There actually is a state of touch called "not touching" before CONTACT - its NOT touching. That is a physical state of NOT touching and it comes before the TOUCH. It's not simply "*" before "movement" it's NOT TOUCH, then TOUCH, then movement.
I'm asking for syllabification in the spelling to take into account when a parameter is the NULL state. Not Touching is a real state, it is not simply "move to the next parameter which is movement". So touching is not a "kind of movement" it is a state and when nothing is there, that is an actual placeholder.
SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION
SignWriting List moderator
[log in to unmask]
Post Messages to the SignWriting List:
[log in to unmask]
SignWriting List Archives & Home Page
Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages