SignWriting List Forum | |||
|
From:
Don & Theresa G Date: Thu Aug 26, 1999 5:28 pm Subject: Re: SignWriting principles | ||||||||
You know, in defense of Joe, I thought his message was entirely professional and appropriate. I did not see any cursing in his post, unless I'm totally oblivious to it. The only thing I could find resembling cursing, after the woman posted objecting to it, was the word "linguistish". It is my suspicion that this woman transposed the last several letters of this word to read "linguish-t". So, there was no cursing, just a reading problem (which is a normal one-- happens to everybody at one time or another). So, enough on the cursing issue already! Everybody on this list has been very polite and professional in their discussions. Let's keep it that way! A thought just occurred to me -- we have been discussing whether SignWriting is Phonemic/Alphabetic or Logographic. We have seen how the transposition of graphemes/phonemes can alter one's understanding of the textual message in an alphabetic/phonemic written language (English). Does such transpositions occur in reading SW? If not, wouldn't that be an argument for a more logographic perspective of SW? --Don Grushkin ----- Original Message ----- From: Ronald Zapien To: Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 9:04 AM Subject: Re: SignWriting principles > Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > > > > > > I appreciate your cursing, Joe. :-) Seriously, please don't > > expect everyone to have the same feelings about cursing as you have. If > > you explain why it bothers you, we might be willing to avoid it out of > > consideration, but if you order us around it just makes us mad. > > > > > Why curse when there are so many better ways to say the same thing. > Cursing shows a limited ability to express oneself in any given > language--not to mention that it is rude and this is a civilized list. > Just my not so humble opinion. > > Cheryl (who has been so busy I've not had time to really keep up with > this list--sorry!) | ||||||||
|
|