4 ms·
I would wonder, given that many scientific words--especially in chemistry--are a jumble of root plus prefixes and suffixes (de-oxy-ribo-nucleo-tide), and there
by abruzzi 7y ago
I would wonder, given that many scientific words--especially in chemistry--are a jumble of root plus prefixes and suffixes (de-oxy-ribo-nucleo-tide), and there are a LOT of these chemistry words, would it be productive to treat the signs the same way. So instead of a single sign for deoxyribonucleotide, you break it into a sort of compound sign that is built up from similar meaning sub parts? I know very little about ASL or BSL to know how much this sort of word construction already happens.
- _nalply 7y agoI am Deaf myself and my Signed Language (Swiss German Sign Language) is special, so I don't know whether my experience is generalizable. It is very possible to agree upon a language with your interpreters and colleagues who are also Deaf. So you create something not official but what works for you and your situation. This approach often works fine for me: try to convey the meaning into movement and dynamics. Signed Languages are very powerful and are conceptually more capable to express something at its core instead giving it a name. Add to this "core" sign a few modifiers like fingerspell the first or the first few letters, and what works very well in Swiss German Sign Language, mouthing, i. e. move the mouth as if you would verbalize but don't make a sound. These mouthings are linguistically known as "mouth pictures". Exactly as loan words, and often the loaned words are mangled horribly but they are just an expedient for communication.
- mabbo 7y agoI studied American Sign Language for 3 years in University (more of a drinking club with credits than anything else). We were taught that a lot of signed language is like this- that signs can be invented as needed and agreed upon and that's just a normal part of what makes Signed languages cool. As a result, it was expected that if we traveled a few hundred km in any direction, the local signs might be dramatically different than the ones we're used to, and so we'd better learn to interpret context and ask what specific words meant.
- _nalply 7y agoCorrect.
- DavidAdams 7y agoI'd suppose it's no different than the wide use of local colloquialisms, abbreviations, and pronunciation differences in spoken language region by region. An American in Australia has to intuitively pick up a lot of new vocabulary in order to understand what's going on in addition to the obvious parsing of the accent.
- _nalply 7y agoAgain: correct.
- norgie 7y agoThis is a feature of all natural languages, not just signed ones. We commonly refer to these words or phrase as idioms, slang, jargon, etc.
- _nalply 7y agoSigned Languages are different. It's hard for people who don't talk a Signed Language to understand because of the Blub Paradox. The word "Blub Paradox" in itself is a good example of what Deaf people do if they encounter concepts they need to communicate. They make up words. Signed Languages are very productive in making up words. So it is not just an idiom, slang or jargon, it is more than that.
- ZephyrP 7y agoI once asked a deaf programmer how technical concepts were communicated. He explained that most non-practitioners would use finger-spelling but that a parlance among deaf programmers existed to convey a variety of technical terms. I vividly recall the sign for "Port Scanning" made by tracing an oblong ellipse oriented upwards with your index finger and then "pushing" that finger through the imaginary figure 3-4 times from the top going downwards. I imagine a similar set of signs arising in different disciplines.