SignWriting List Forum| Message 2667 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] | Message Index |
|
SignWriting List Forum |
|||
|
|
From:
Wayne in Maine Date: Wed Feb 2, 2000 11:46 am Subject: Re: Shorthand | |
|
Hi Karen - I haven't used it, but would be interested in learning more about it. Where could I see some examples of it? - Wayne >From: "Karen A. Van Hoek" >Reply-To: SignWriting List >To: SignWriting List >Subject: Shorthand >Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:10:58 -0500 > >Dear All > >Does anyone else on the list ever use SignWriting Shorthand? For those >who don't know, it's a very fast way of writing signs, with extremely >simplified symbols -- many symbols reduced to just one or two strokes. It >can be written at the speed of actual signing, and was originally intended >to be used for taking notes e.g. at a meeting; the idea was that later the >signs would be re-transcribed in the more full notation. I've used >Shorthand a fair bit, though, and I've found that I don't need to re-write >the signs later -- even though the notation is very stripped-down, it >remains readable. I've found notes that I wrote over 10 years ago that I >can still read (so it's not just that I remember what I wrote). One of >the oddest things about Shorthand is that it seems somehow very dynamic -- >it seems more flexible, more based on intuition than the regular >SignWriting (even though it has rules, too), and it feels to me as if it >really captures the dynamism of signs. > >I sometimes think Shorthand would make a great everyday handwriting. It >wouldn't be good for writing down brand new sign languages for the first >time, but for people who already know a sign language, it could be a very >effective way to jot things down. (I have mostly used it that way -- >someone in a lab meeting at Salk would say something interesting in ASL, >and I would jot it down, maybe with a note, "Can you also say..." and a >possible sentence in ASL that I wanted to check out. It was faster than >writing signs with English glosses. I've also written entire journal >entries in Shorthand.) > >Valerie and I are talking about revising and updating the Shorthand manual >-- the old manual is written from the receptive viewpoint, and doesn't >incorporate the changes that have been made in SignWriting in the last >several years. It'd be great to get input from other people who use it, >or who are interested in trying it out. > >Karen van Hoek |
|