The lowest form of language

imdeafsowhat said:
Ms. "Amercian English". You proved that there are English like American English, British English, Chinese English and so on.

Yet you're saying no, English is not being used widely in the world. MAKE SENSE, LADY.[/QUOTE

Twilight Zone!
Click to expand...
 
imdeafsowhat said:
Redfox- You say, Cavemen started talking before writing? What's the paintings on the cave means? Oh right, the're not writing, they're speaking. Wait, that made no sense.
Click to expand...

People from long ago could use their voices for communication as evidenced by their hyoid bones. There is also oral literature from before writing was invented and those of cultures that don't have their own writing systems.

American English, eh? Sounds like people are trying to seperate English in different categories. Typical. If that is so, then English is indeed widely used in the world. Like you said, American English, British English, and Other English, LIKE SEE!
Click to expand...

Sure, because there are differences between those versions of English with pronunciations and vocabularies.
 
Actually oral communication should come before writing. You can find evidence in animal groups. Most of them have their own language even though its not as complex as human languages. They still can communicate in limited sense using their own language. There are many researches on understanding their language.

If thats true human should have developed voice communication before writing too , even though those writings were in paintings and language was nothing like we know of today.

-
 
I am so confused by this thread. What are we arguing for/against? English being popular is different from being widely used? Which was first in history - Oral or Written? Imdeafsowhat's supposedly horrendous grammar skills?

It still doesn't stop me from liking this thread though...
 
Daredevel7 said:
I am so confused by this thread. What are we arguing for/against? English being popular is different from being widely used? Which was first in history - Oral or Written? Imdeafsowhat's supposedly horrendous grammar skills?

It still doesn't stop me from liking this thread though...
Click to expand...

Ohh no its very simple. iamdeafsowhat just keeps entertaining himself with every answer he gets. I post from time to time when I see something I am interested in ( I wrote the last post after reading what Redfox said for example) , some people still takes this thread serious, others already left, you are wondering, and life is good.. :)

-
 
imdeafsowhat said:
...Reba - Interpreter programs are bullshit, I've met many who never took classes and claim that they hung out with deaf everyday. The programs are all varied based on the teachers. You make no sense. All spoken language started from writing. You're saying that Shakespeare spoke out every play he thought of? HOW DOES HE KEEP REMEMBERING THE ACTS?
Click to expand...
I never said that Shakespeare spoke out a play before writing it. I'm talking about the development of spoken languages into written languages. All spoken languages started out as spoken languages, not written languages. Some spoken languages users never developed written languages. It's your statement "all spoken language started from writing" that doesn't make sense.

Also, there are ways to permanently make a record of ASL communications, plays, lectures and such, with VLOGs, movies, videotaping, etc. So, spoken language can be preserved and disseminated through written and electronic forms, and visual language can be preserved and disseminated through electronic forms. Spoken languages that don't have a written form can be recorded on audio media (tapes and CDs). They are all equally valuable languages.


I know ASL and I say it doesn't make sense, why? Because it doesn't. The levels are of those language with Alphabets, like for English there's 26 Alphabets, in Greek, there's 24. ASL uses English's Alphabets so therefore it's copying English in another form, sign language.
Click to expand...
ASL makes plenty of sense to those who are fluent users.

There are spoken languages that don't have alphabets either. So?


To All - Don't try and fancy up your post with English grammar. You all kinda failed. Hahaha.
Click to expand...
Fancy up? It's called using standard English grammar.
 
Hermes said:
Actually oral communication should come before writing. You can find evidence in animal groups. Most of them have their own language even though its not as complex as human languages. They still can communicate in limited sense using their own language. There are many researches on understanding their language.

If thats true human should have developed voice communication before writing too , even though those writings were in paintings and language was nothing like we know of today.

-
Click to expand...


ASL should come before writing. Same concept cuz it is all about language development being established before tackling the difficult avenues of reading and writing. :giggle:
 
shel90 said:
ASL should come before writing. Same concept cuz it is all about language development being established before tackling the difficult avenues of reading and writing. :giggle:
Click to expand...

I think Hermes was talking about history of communication. WAAAY back in the caveman days!

Back then when they didn't have a very extensive language.... uh oh... its the Geico caveman coming to attack me!
 
Daredevel7 said:
I think Hermes was talking about history of communication. WAAAY back in the caveman days!

Back then when they didn't have a very extensive language.... uh oh... its the Geico caveman coming to attack me!
Click to expand...

:laugh2:

Ok, my mistake for misreading Hermes' enlingting post. :)
 
imdeafsowhat said:
American Sign Language is the lowest form of language.

Signing Exact English is on the same level as English.

Braille is on the same level as English.


Why?

ASL has no structure, no to be verbs, and it doesn't make sense at all.

SEE is the same as English only in SIGNS.

Braille is the same as English only in DOTS.
Click to expand...
As a hard of hearing person who can communicate when wearing hearing aids I take great offense to the denigration of ASL as a language. I wonder if those people who denigrate it have ever bothered to learn ASL?

ASL is not English. It is a separate language. It is a much more efficient mode of manual communication that SEE or any other language that directly translates English in to manual communication.

I do believe that it is important for all deaf people (in North America at least) who use ASL also learn the proper use of the English language. It will allow them to communicate properly when using the written form of the language. It will allow them greater understanding in the written form when reading books for example.
 
HoHPete said:
As a hard of hearing person who can communicate when wearing hearing aids I take great offense to the denigration of ASL as a language. I wonder if those people who denigrate it have ever bothered to learn ASL?

ASL is not English. It is a separate language. It is a much more efficient mode of manual communication that SEE or any other language that directly translates English in to manual communication.

I do believe that it is important for all deaf people (in North America at least) who use ASL also learn the proper use of the English language. It will allow them to communicate properly when using the written form of the language. It will allow them greater understanding in the written form when reading books for example.
Click to expand...

THANK U!!! That's what I see with my students who come to school with a strong foundation in ASL..they learn English in print much quicker than those who have a weak language foundation.
 
Liza said:
I used to think ASL was broken english after being raised on SEE (oralism didn't work for me), but I can see my old idea was just 110% ignorance as I know your post to be.
Click to expand...

Ah! Something we share in common!
 
jillio said:
Quite untrue. It is only necessary to interpret ASL into English for an English speaker. Two users of ASL do not need interpretation into English. In fact, in that case, it would be English that would need to be interpreted into ASL.

Likewise, ASL is not always interpreted into the English form of spoken language. It can be interpreted into any language on earth, therefore, bypassing English entirely. It can be interpreted directly from the pure manual form of ASL into spoken Spanish, Norwegian, Korean, or any other language without having to utilize an English translation in the process. Just one of the many reasons that linguists have identified ASL as a full and complete language independent of spoken English.
Click to expand...

Yeah... It's handy if you or the other signer has no other language in common. I remember going to a deaf club meeting a few years ago and meeting a Mexican mother with a deaf son and soon I realized that my Spanish isn't good enough to talk to her. She didn't know English so we had to use ASL and she told me all about her son like for example how they moved to the USA and learned ASL and other stories. I don't remember everything she told me but we didn't need English to speak to each other.
 
Reba said:
Also, there are ways to permanently make a record of ASL communications, plays, lectures and such, with VLOGs, movies, videotaping, etc. So, spoken language can be preserved and disseminated through written and electronic forms, and visual language can be preserved and disseminated through electronic forms. Spoken languages that don't have a written form can be recorded on audio media (tapes and CDs). They are all equally valuable languages.



ASL makes plenty of sense to those who are fluent users.

There are spoken languages that don't have alphabets either. So?



Fancy up? It's called using standard English grammar.
Click to expand...

Nods. Vblogs is a much better medium for ASL/signed languges than prose due to it visual nature.


It's quite proable a lot of the Native American languages fall into the of having no written form yet this doesn't make them make them any less valuable than English.
 
deafskeptic said:
Yeah... It's handy if you or the other signer has no other language in common. I remember going to a deaf club meeting a few years ago and meeting a Mexican mother with a deaf son and soon I realized that my Spanish isn't good enough to talk to her. She didn't know English so we had to use ASL and she told me all about her son like for example how they moved to the USA and learned ASL and other stories. I don't remember everything she told me but we didn't need English to speak to each other.
Click to expand...

An excellent example, deafskeptic. Thank you.:ty:
 
Back
Top