From: James.Womack@f71.n382.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: ASL & English
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:59:08 GMT
Reply-To: James.Womack@f71.n382.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:382/71 - BitStream, Round Rock Tx

Index Number: 21057

[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]

from: Wayne Silsbee
To:Patrick Hayes

Okay. I'll accept this analysis. It *looks* unstructured. From my
original argument, this changes nothing. It still *causes* the
shortening and "de-structuralizing" of English when English is
signed.

Right? Wrong?
---------------------------------------------------------------

JW>You're wrong, I am afraid. Whenever a non-native user of a
language faces that language, it "looks" or "sounds" funny. that's
because s/he recognizes it is distinct from his/her own language.
This in no way means the different language is non-structured. It
means it is distinct from ones own. When you go assigning a
westernized alphabet to Asian, Soviet, and other language that
possess their own alphabet, you make it "unstructured" in terms of
phonetic representation. But to call it unstructured is an insult
to the people and culture whose language it is. They didn't ask you
to mess with what's theirs and not yours.

Now with SEE and ASL, the people involved took the motions and some
of the handshapes of ASL and hearized it into SEE, SE,and other MCE
forms. Then had the gall to cal ASL unstructured.

English tends to be the odd language out when you look at word
order of other languages. We say theirs is backwards while ignoring
that ours is the one different from the so many "theirs." English
is shot with exceptions so that it has a contradictory set of
grammar and syntax rules. Other languages tend to rather consistent
with grammar, gender references, and meanings. If one really wants
to call language unstructured,English is a prime candidate for it.
So much so, that ASL according to research has more common
characteristics shared with most languages on Earth than English
does (research in this area is supposed to be on-going at the
University of Michigan last I heard).

If you took Spanish and added English prefixes and suffixes and
word order to it, you'd get such a hodgepodge of gooblygook,the
native Spanish speakers would not recognize it. Who would waste
their time this way, you ask? A gosh darn good question! Because
that's exactly what educators have done with ASL! After making
signs practically unintelligible to native users, they sit back and
lament why the majority of Deaf can't master English. As if
phonetics can be perceived by the eye! It is inherent ridiculous.
The eye is a photo-particle collector. the ear is a sonic receptor.
These two organs have totally different functions! That this basic
scientific fact escapes "educators" of the Deaf is inconceivable.
But it has escaped them nonetheless. And the result is them sitting
back there saying how unstructured the visually based natural
language of the deaf is and how structured the phonetically based
hearing people's English is. The absurdity is just incredible. And
it persists. But now, its beginning to anger Deaf people. Very
much.

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!382!71!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f71.n382.z1.fidonet.org