Grammar

Mountain Man said:
But that's not really passive voice because the subjects and objects are implied, and in practical use they will have been indexed previously in the conversation.

As they would be in an English translation, yet it is still passive voice.


I agree. It's the difference between learning a language and acquiring it.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. That is not the difference between acquisition and learning at all.
 
Mountain Man said:
Yes, passive voice can be demonstrated in ASL through various techniques, but my understanding is that passive voice as an actual grammatical feature doesn't exist in the language.
Click to expand...

Even if there is, "go we" would still not be passive voice. Passive voice, in ASL of course, would put the verb at the end or it would use a subject-verb-object kind of order.

see:

http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/topics/grammar5.htm
 
Last edited:
Actually, there is. Perhaps you have just not learned about it yet.
 
Mountain Man said:
But that's not really passive voice because the subjects and objects are implied, and in practical use they will have been indexed previously in the conversation.
Click to expand...

Just a point I'd like to make. That there is no proof of there ever being a passive voice or one being handed down from what ASL has its origins in.

ASL has its origins in Old French Sign Language , Natural gestures, and Martha's Vineyard Sign Language.

source:

Groce, Nora Ellen (1988). Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language: Hereditary Deafness on Martha's Vineyard. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-27041-X.

Lane, Harlan L. (1984). When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-394-50878-5.

Padden, Carol; & Humphries, Tom. (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-19423-3.

Sacks, Oliver W. (1989). Seeing voices: A journey into the land of the deaf. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06083-0.

Stokoe, William C. (1976). Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Linstok Press. ISBN 0-932130-01-1.

Stokoe, William C. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers (No. 8). Buffalo: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.



Old French sign language used Directional verbs, something entirely different then what a passive voice is.

source:

Desloges, Pierre; 1779, Observations d’un sourd et muet, sur un cours élémentaire d’éducation des sourds et muets, Published in 1779 by M. l’Abbé Deschamps (Chapelain de l’Église d’Orléans), Amsterdam and B. Morin, Paris.

Natural gestures are just "body language"; actual languages with grammatical structure, syntax, etc.. are something entirely different.

Building Languages: Natural Gestures

Martha's Vineyard Sign Language, not much is known about this as its extinct. It was, however, supposedly based on the Old Kent System, which is also extinct.

source:

Groce, Nora Ellen (1985). Everyone here spoke sign language: Hereditary deafness on Martha's Vineyard. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-27040-1.

Jackson, Peter (2001). A Pictorial History of Deaf Britain.
 
We are not speaking about the historical origins of the language. We are talking about the use of the language today, in its current and evolved form. There are many changes as a language evolves. ASL today is not ASL 100 years ago, just as spoken American English today is quite different from Spoken British English, even though they have the same origins. Likewise, formal and informal forms of the same langauge will have differences.

Just curious....do you read French?

And it really isn't necessary to cite a long list of books unless you have taken a quote from them or paraphrased them. All you need to cite is the website you quoted.

The thing is, if passive voice cannot be demonstrated in ASL, then there are concepts that cannot be translated into ASL. I think everyone will agree that is not the case.
 
jillio said:
We are not speaking about the historical origins of the language. We are talking about the use of the language today, in its current and evolved form. There are many changes as a language evolves. ASL today is not ASL 100 years ago, just as spoken American English today is quite different from Spoken British English, even though they have the same origins. Likewise, formal and informal forms of the same langauge will have differences.

Just curious....do you read French?

And it really isn't necessary to cite a long list of books unless you have taken a quote from them or paraphrased them. All you need to cite is the website you quoted.
Click to expand...

Actually we were talking about ASL grammar not the evolution of the language or origins. I brought up the points I made about the origins of ASL because its relevant when it comes to the debate as to whether a passive voice actually exists in ASL or not.
 
jasin said:
Actually we were talking about ASL grammar not the evolution of the language or origins. I brought up the points I made about the origins of ASL because its relevant when it comes to the debate as to whether a passive voice actually exists in ASL or not.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why the fact that at its origins, no passive voice was used is completely irrelevent as to how the language is used today. You posted regarding the origins of the language, so I figured you meant to use that as support for your claim.

And in the use of ASL today, passive voice can be demonstrated. Otherwise, there would be many, many concepts that could not be expressed in ASL.
 
jasin said:
That's really irrelevant. You do not need to know spoken or written French to understand or learn Old French Sign Language.
Click to expand...

So, you understand Old French Sign Language, then?

But my question pertained to the fact that you cited a paper written in French. :shrug: Figured you must know how to read French if you are citing academic papers written in the language.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. Which is why the fact that at its origins, no passive voice was used is completely irrelevent as to how the language is used today. You posted regarding the origins of the language, so I figured you meant to use that as support for your claim.

And in the use of ASL today, passive voice can be demonstrated. Otherwise, there would be many, many concepts that could not be expressed in ASL.
Click to expand...

The topic of this thread and whether a passive voice exists in ASL are two different things. They are actually two different topics.

Anyways, "Go we" would still not be correct ASL. I did point out too, why it would not be correct ASL and that had nothing to do with the origins of ASL.
 
Many handshapes, which are the fundmentals of learning ASL, are orginiated from the French language...just fyi.

Go WE...if used with the handshape (number 3) walking at the same time ...would be correct ASL structure...but Go We is at signed at the same time...
 
jillio said:
So, you understand Old French Sign Language, then?
Click to expand...


I do not need to understand a language in order to post a fact about that language. Facts are facts regardless of what I know or understand.
 
deafbajagal said:
Many handshapes, which are the fundmentals of learning ASL, are orginiated from the French language...just fyi.

Go WE...if used with the handshape (number 3) walking at the same time ...would be correct ASL structure...but Go We is at signed at the same time...
Click to expand...


That would only be for the hand shapes. ASL is far more then just hand shapes and gestures though. ASL actually has grammatical structure, grammatical rules, etc.. that need to be incorporated into one's signing if one is going to sign correctly. I suggest you take a look the research Dr. William C. Stokoe, Jr. did while working at Gallaudet University for further information on that.
 
I don't have to look at his research since I was honored to work alongside with him before he passed away and saw his research findings firsthand.

Read my post carefully...I said handshapes are the fundmentals of the language...in the same sense that phonemes are the fundmentals of the English language.
 
deafbajagal said:
Many handshapes, which are the fundmentals of learning ASL, are orginiated from the French language...just fyi.

Go WE...if used with the handshape (number 3) walking at the same time ...would be correct ASL structure...but Go We is at signed at the same time...
Click to expand...

Thank you!!!
 
deafbajagal said:
Read my post carefully...I said handshapes are the fundmentals of the language...in the same sense that phonemes are the fundmentals of the English language.
Click to expand...

I know what you said, but I still disagree.

"Go WE...if used with the handshape (number 3) walking at the same time ...would be correct ASL structure"
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement because you can't just use a hand shape alone as a sign, especially when there already is a sign for "we". That would go against what a hand shape is.

You can't just willy-nilly do that when you are not describing something if you are going to use this hand shape as a classifier; the only thing this hand shape could even be close to being since its not a specific sign as hand shapes are not signs.

Signing in passive voice, if it even exists, would not be describing something either. In most cases you can't even use just a hand shape alone as a classifier. The reason being is because most classifiers have movement or are made up of more then one hand shape e.g. the cl for cup.

I don't have to look at his research since I was honored to work alongside with him before he passed away and saw his research findings firsthand.
Click to expand...

Then you should be the first to know that ASL is more then just hand shapes, regardless of how fundamental they are to our language
 
Last edited:
deafbajagal said:
I don't have to look at his research since I was honored to work alongside with him before he passed away and saw his research findings firsthand.

Read my post carefully...I said handshapes are the fundmentals of the language...in the same sense that phonemes are the fundmentals of the English language.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Handshapes are the phonemes of the language, and the way they are combined with movement and placement to create meaning are the morphemes.
 
Bye Bye Me go

Why?

Point none.

Why?

Boy understand not.

Me explain explain "chaa" (mouth movement)

bye bye me go
 
Back
Top