4 ms·

I've learned sign-language for 4 years (Not deaf), I'm not a linguistic expert, but I don't really get this… Most sign languages (which emerge naturally just l

by cel1ne 12y ago

I've learned sign-language for 4 years (Not deaf), I'm not a linguistic expert, but I don't really get this… Most sign languages (which emerge naturally just like spoken languages, some even think that they might have been there before) have simple, atomic signs for concepts/things. There are combinations of course, like pointing to your earlobe to add "female" to the sign before. So the specialty is that this language has no such combinations at all? There are also parts of sign languages which aren't categorized clearly, especially when explaining visual/spatial circumstances. When signing "I bought a table, it's wooden and has a fine white line engraved along the edge." you probably won't use signs for "fine", "line", "along" or "edge". You would just describe it visually. There is probably not even a sign for "edge" which applies to this context. Again, I'm not a linguistic expert, but I think that some of these characteristics might be hard to squeeze in "It's a word or not".

XaspR8d 12y ago
The classification of the less-divisible "free-form" signs (especially those seen in narrative and spatial arrangements) is definitely a challenge to linguists, but that doesn't mean that they don't consider them to be constructed out of semantic or phonetic units at all. For example, different objects and methods of description are frequently represented using the same classifier handshapes, despite how varied their placement and combination can be. On a similar note, the linguistic meaning of "word" is much, much fuzzier than native English speakers expect (letters surrounded by spaces). Trying to pin a particular level of structures across language categories becomes very difficult due to morphemic, phonetic, and syntactic processes that can break down word boundaries. (Even consider contractions in English for that matter. What makes don't one word when do not is two?) So the issue is, frankly, a mess, and many linguists tend to avoid using the term "word" cross-linguistically.

by cel1ne 12y ago

XaspR8d 12y ago

The classification of the less-divisible "free-form" signs (especially those seen in narrative and spatial arrangements) is definitely a challenge to linguists, but that doesn't mean that they don't consider them to be constructed out of semantic or phonetic units at all. For example, different objects and methods of description are frequently represented using the same classifier handshapes, despite how varied their placement and combination can be. On a similar note, the linguistic meaning of "word" is much, much fuzzier than native English speakers expect (letters surrounded by spaces). Trying to pin a particular level of structures across language categories becomes very difficult due to morphemic, phonetic, and syntactic processes that can break down word boundaries. (Even consider contractions in English for that matter. What makes don't one word when do not is two?) So the issue is, frankly, a mess, and many linguists tend to avoid using the term "word" cross-linguistically.