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.