SignWriting List Forum | |||
|
From:
Ingvild Kristine Roald Date: Sun Aug 8, 1999 1:43 pm Subject: Re: proper names | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
On Aug 6, 1999, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > > The point I'm trying to make is that we should get away from this > one-to-one mapping between spoken and signed languages. Why do the > initials for a signed language used in Brazil have to be in Portuguese, > and those for a signed language used in Belgium have to be in French, or > Flemish? I agree with that, if we are talking of how we name these signed langueges in other countries spoken language. Norwegian Sigm LAnguage is known in English by that name, and by the acronym NSL, but in Norwegian spoken language it it known as Norsk Tegnsprog, with the acronym NTS. I'm sure that if linguists using French or Irish or any other language would call our sign language by their own acronym, for their purpouse. > Roman-based sign writing systems have the advantage that you can > have initials in the signed language, not in some spoken language. This I do not understand. Are you suggesting that using the fingerspelled version of NSL or NTS would make it any more real sign language? Because the name of NSL in the language itsel, is a *sign*, not something fingerspelled. So I cannot see the advantage of the Roman-based sign writing systems. Initials are based on spoken languages, not on the signed ones. And if this acronym business is just for makeing a list inside the program for further encoding, I would go with what conforms to most applications. Then NSL would be OK for our sign language, because English is more widely used, and Norwegian spoken language is not Norwegian sign language either. Ingvild Ingvild Kristine Roald Reseach fellow, Department of Applied Education University of Bergen, N-5020 BERGEN, Norway e-mail: Department phone: +47 55 58 48 30 Department fax: +47 55 58 48 80 Private phone: +47 55 28 34 34 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|