Mark Williamson wrote:
It sounds an
awful lot to me like sign language is an othorgraphy, not a
distinct language. Having "American sign language" to the exclusion of
Auslan, British sign language, et. al. is incredibly US-centric.
No, this is not the case. Signed languages are completely independent
languages, with different grammar, vocabulary, and syntax than
whatever spoken languages with which they may coexist.
Ok, thanks for explaining that. Is Braille a language or an orthography?
As I noted, American Sign Language is used in parts of
Mexico, even
though the spoken language there is Spanish.
Ok, so a person who signs American Sign Language from Mexico can
understand someone who signs American Sign Language from Rhode Island
(to pick somewhere in the US at random)?
I never proposed having ASL to the exclusion of other
signed
languages... in fact, I don't believe anybody did.
Ok, the subject should have been changed to reflect that a while ago then.
Can I ask just one question: how many deaf people
with Internet access
are illiterate in whatever the audible version of their language is?
Any? Are there any websites which are "written" in sign language?
"audible version"? What do you mean?? Signed languages are languages
completely independent of all spoken languages. They are distinct
languages, and are no more "primitive" or "advanced" than spoken
languages. Each signed language is a language in its own right.
Ok, thanks for explaining that.
Now, to answer your question assuming that by
"audible version of
their language", you mean the primary written language of their area.
Yes, although I actually meant "spoken language" (since there are
arguments about which languages are and aren't written, but I won't go
into that).
It was noted earlier that the average deaf American
has a 4th-grade
reading level (may be different for other countries).
I'm hesitant to accept data from one country where there are other
countries which have a better reputation as being leaders in the
particular area the data is reporting on (eg. I couldn't care less about
data from Iceland on sugar cane production, because Iceland is not known
for producing sugar cane). Similarly, I won't accept literacy statistics
about the deaf population from the US when there are countries with
higher literacy rates. What is the literacy rate amongst the deaf
population in Sweden?
Also, what about Catalan? How many Catalan speakers
with internet
access are illiterate in Spanish? Any?? Yet, we have a Catalan
Wikipedia, and it's quite large now...
I don't know, you tell me? Is software available in Catalan? Or did they
have to understand some other language (Spanish? English?) in order to
get to the site in the first place?
My point is, how will people who "only understand sign language" even be
able to access a Wikipedia in whichever sign language? How will they be
able to edit? How will they be able to provide references? Have any
books been written in sign language?
Until these questions are answered, I don't
see why (or indeed *how*)
Sign Language Wikipedias can exist.
I have already answered both of these questions over and over. By
choosing to ignore my messages (and, indeed, those of others, as most
of the things I've said have been said in this thread by others as
well) as you seem to have done, you are wasting the time of everybody
involved -- including yourself -- by asking questions which have
already been answered.
Actually, I think you've still failed to answer the *how*, even if
you've answered the *why*. The "why do we need a Wikipedia written in
sign language" I can understand. The "how will it work", I don't.
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \