Capitalization Question

PaulCilwa

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I looked through this forum but didn't find an answer...

Should the word "sign" be capitalized when used as shorthand to designate ASL? For example,

He returned to the defense table as the judge gave final instructions to the jury. Even though this was protocol, Barry translated the words into sign so Decker and the defendant would understand them.​

Should that be "translated the words into Sign" since ASL is a language?

Thanks for any help and/or opinions.
 
I don't think so, especially since "sign" can refer to anything from ASL to SEE II.
 
Ahh...I didn't know there were alternatives to ASL. (Other than fingerspelling, to some extent.)
 
ASL - American Sign Language, a language in and of itself with its own rules for grammar

SEE II - Signed Exact English, a system of manually encoding English, often has signs for parts of speech like "-ing" and "-ed" and often letter-initializes ASL signs with whatever letter the English word begins with

PSE - Pidgin Signed English, a mix between ASL and SEE II, usually signing ASL signs in English order and not signing every "the", "a", and "to"

Rochester Method - Finger spelling every word that's spoken
 
Just to let you know, Sign languages isn't a word-for-word translation for English. It has a language of it's own like Spanish or French... I'm not even sure words translated into sign would be even appropriate. But what do I know about writing? I just wanted make sure you don't see ASL as a visual tools for the deaf instead of Language for the deaf.
 
CJB, thanks for the list. Lighthouse, I went and changed it to "ASL", thus avoiding the issue.
 
I looked through this forum but didn't find an answer...

Should the word "sign" be capitalized when used as shorthand to designate ASL? For example,

He returned to the defense table as the judge gave final instructions to the jury. Even though this was protocol, Barry translated the words into sign so Decker and the defendant would understand them.​

Should that be "translated the words into Sign" since ASL is a language?

Thanks for any help and/or opinions.

It would make much better sense to say "...translated the words into signed language so..." since you do not know the actual signed language used.
 
yes, if he is American, it would be American Signed Language (ASL) .. if he is from UK, it would be BSL
 
I looked through this forum but didn't find an answer...

Should the word "sign" be capitalized when used as shorthand to designate ASL? For example,

He returned to the defense table as the judge gave final instructions to the jury. Even though this was protocol, Barry translated the words into sign so Decker and the defendant would understand them.​

Should that be "translated the words into Sign" since ASL is a language?

Thanks for any help and/or opinions.

If it is a book, and you already mentioned American Signed Language for this character, I supposed you could say, "Barry signed so Decker and the defendant would understand them."
 
I don't think so because in your example it's not a proper noun.
 
Somewhere at the beginning of the written passage it should be stated which kind of signs are being used. For example, "the interpreter used American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate with the defendant." Then, subsequent references could simply use "signs", "signing", "signed", etc.

Also, the proper terminology is "interpreted" not "translated."

Do not capitalize "signs" even if it refers to the language ASL. We don't capitalize "words" even though English is a language, right?

Also, words are not translated into signs. Spoken concepts are interpreted into signs, and signed concepts are interpreted into English words. That is, words aren't directly interpreted into signs, and signs aren't directly interpreted into words. Technical/scientific words and proper names and titles are often spelled.
 
Somewhere at the beginning of the written passage it should be stated which kind of signs are being used. For example, "the interpreter used American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate with the defendant." Then, subsequent references could simply use "signs", "signing", "signed", etc.

Also, the proper terminology is "interpreted" not "translated."

Do not capitalize "signs" even if it refers to the language ASL. We don't capitalize "words" even though English is a language, right?

Also, words are not translated into signs. Spoken concepts are interpreted into signs, and signed concepts are interpreted into English words. That is, words aren't directly interpreted into signs, and signs aren't directly interpreted into words. Technical/scientific words and proper names and titles are often spelled.
I disagree, Reba.

English is interpreted into ASL.

English is translated into SEE. SEE is a code form of English.

That's why you have translators and interpreters. It's pretty to tell the two apart fast.
(For these who are curious on how to tell... If the "interpreter" starts signing as soon as the speaker speaks, a very crucial "tell", it's translating.)
 
I disagree, Reba.

English is interpreted into ASL.

English is translated into SEE. SEE is a code form of English.

That's why you have translators and interpreters. It's pretty to tell the two apart fast.
(For these who are curious on how to tell... If the "interpreter" starts signing as soon as the speaker speaks, a very crucial "tell", it's translating.)
From RID:

"Most sign language interpreters either interpret, which means working between English and ASL, or they transliterate, which is working between spoken English and a form of a signed language that uses a more English-based word order."


An ASL interpreter is more likely to use a slight time lag in order to gather the whole concept before signing because sign order doesn't "match" word order.

A signed English transliterater is more likely to start signing immediately because sign and word order will be the same.
 
Back
Top