Re: Responding to a challenge
From: Peter T. Daniels (grammatim_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 07/26/04
- Next message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Phaistos Disk : the DOGMATICS and their LIES"
- Previous message: Douglas G. Kilday: "Re: What's the different between /tS/ as one phoneme and as two?"
- In reply to: Raymond S. Wise: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Next in thread: Raymond S. Wise: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Reply: Raymond S. Wise: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:22:46 GMT
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
> I think sign languages are young because I have never read of a sign
> language for the deaf which has been in continuous use longer than has
> American Sign Language (French Sign Language is distinguished from Old
> French Sign Language, from which ASL was derived, so I would consider French
> Sign Language itself to have been in continuous use over a shorter period
> than has been ASL.) A Dutch resupply camp for the East India Company was
> established on the Cape of Good Hope in 1652, and I would expect Afrikaans
> to have developed before the beginning of the 1700s. American Sign Language
> could not have existed before 1816, when Thomas Gallaudet brought Laurent
> Clerc to the United States. So Afrikaans is older than any sign language of
> which I am aware. Note that John McWhorter calls Afrikaans a "semi-creole,"
> which would make this comparing apples and oranges: You have to compare sign
> languages to creole languages.
>
> >
> >
> > Raymond> Relatively simple in *form,* not simple in their ability
> > Raymond> to communicate ideas.
> >
> > What makes you think sign languages are simpler in form?
>
> Well, first I believe creole languages are simpler in form than most other
> spoken languages. If you don't accept that, then you will of course not
> accept the following: Sign languages developed in a way which very much
> resembled the development of creole languages.
Two deaf infants will come up with a way of communicating with each
other that's not based on any preexisting linguistic system. (See the
Nicaragua case.)
> Add to that the fact that it takes time for "baroquification," as McWhorter
> put it, it follows that sign languages would be equally simple in form to
> creole languages, perhaps even somewhat simpler, because creole languages
> bring some of the baroque elements into the language from the parent
> languages.
No, the parent languages are pidgins, which do not have the "baroque
elements."
> > Raymond> I believe them to be so because I have read that they
> > Raymond> are so.
> >
> > So, you never attempted to learn a sign language to see how simple
> > they are in form?
>
> Just so we are clear on the matter: I make no claim that any sign language
> is "simple" or "simple in form," nor do I make such a claim for creole
> languages or Esperanto, nor do I make the claim even for pidgins or the
> signing system of the North American Indians. If I were to learn a sign
> language and subsequently say that it was relatively easy compared to
> English, French, or Esperanto--which would be my prediction for English and
> French, I have no prediction in the case of Esperanto--I take it that you
> would deny that had any relevance, since you do not believe, for example,
It would not have any truth. Learning ASL is not easier than learning
any other language.
> that Esperanto is relatively simple in form compared to English.
> > Raymond> It makes sense that they would be so, too, since it
> > Raymond> takes time for languages to build up complexities which
> > Raymond> are unnecessary to the purpose of communication (for
> > Raymond> example, all the many ways which English has of turning a
> > Raymond> singular word into its plural took time to acquire).
> >
> > There have been deaf people societies since men and women existed.
> > What makes you think that sign language didn't develop until recently?
> > I believe sign languages are as old as acoustic languages, and undergo
> > similar kinds of developments and build up similar complexities.
>
> I have not claimed that sign languages developed only recently, only that
> sign languages are young languages, by which I mean sign languages which
> currently exist. This says nothing about sign languages which have gone
> extinct, such as Martha's Vineyard Sign Language and the Old Kentish Sign
> Language from which it is believed to be derived. If there are indeed sign
> languages for the deaf which go back for centuries, they could indeed be
> studied to see if the complexities-useless-to-communications have been
> developed.
Just because it never occurred to anyone that deaf gesturing was a
language before a couple centuries ago doesn't mean they weren't
languages.
> > Raymond> Sign languages are relatively young languages,
> >
> > Wanna list the age of every sign language in common use throughout the
> > world?
>
> As I said, I believe that American Sign Language is the oldest sign
> language. Note that I am not making any such claim as "all sign languages
> come from ASL," just that the sign languages which existed before ASL died
> out. The exception would be French Sign Language if we can consider Old
> French Sign Language and French Sign Language to be one language, in which
> case French Sign Language would be the oldest sign language now still in
> existence.
So what? Having no information isn't the same as nonexistence.
-- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net
- Next message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Phaistos Disk : the DOGMATICS and their LIES"
- Previous message: Douglas G. Kilday: "Re: What's the different between /tS/ as one phoneme and as two?"
- In reply to: Raymond S. Wise: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Next in thread: Raymond S. Wise: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Reply: Raymond S. Wise: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
