forum SignWriting List Forum
  Message 2667  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ] Message Index
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

  Message 2667  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ] Message Index