See Truth Seeker. See Truth Seeker ask a question. See Truth Seeker ask a reasonable question. See Truth Seeker ask an interesting question! Good, Truth Seeker, good!
See Monty. See Monty give an answer. See Monty give a sarcastic answer. See Monty give a snotty answer! Bad, Monty, bad!
Monty did not give an interesting answer. Monty gave a boring answer. Monty should have answered with a brief discussion of the history of sign language explaining why so many different versions developed.
See Truth Seeker. Truth Seeker is sad. Truth Seeker is sad because it seems there are only 8000 people who understand Swedish sign language. Truth Seeker thinks it would be nice if the Swedish deaf people could travel wherever they want and talk with their friends. Truth Seeker thinks that deaf people in the world have enough difficulty communicating without creating what appear to be artificial barriers, especially since sign language is supposed to be more or less “onomatopoeic.” Truth Seeker wonders why these barriers exist.
Exactly. There’s no good solution for these kinds of things. You can assign a caseworker who will offer assistance for the kid’s expenditures, in place of just issuing a check; that mitigates the use of the money by the parents. But you really, in the end can’t seperate the parent’s and kid’s finances. Abd I can tell you from experience working in the system that tring to leads to overloaded case mangers, tons of paperwork, massive bureacracy and inefficiency.
From the state’s POV, in the end it’s more efficient to just give them a check.
IANALinguist but it seems inevitable to me that different regions will change a language into dialects and then into different languages in their own right over time.
Human nature. Tribalism etc.
As for different sign languages: Maybe initial differences come about due to small variations introduced for the sake of special words/concepts/alphabet that don’t exist in the “standard” form.
Differences would accumulate from there. It may well be beneficail to have some standardised form, but people aren’t going to check their newspaper every week for the latest official additions to their language, they will make it up as they have always done.
And the state will provide funds for the disabled child. These people say deafness is an “identity”, but no matter what they call it, deafness requires some form of alternate schooling, even if the child is “mainstreamed”, and calls for other amenities, even if the child is raised mostly in the “deaf world”. It’s costly to have a disability, no matter how accepted the disability is.
If these women accept state funding for a problem they deliberately courted, I’m looking on this situation as fraud.
Hey, that was the first time I stated an opinion in GD!
See, but that gets into intentions, "who’s the money benefitting"wrangling, & possibly legal technicalities. I’m not qualified to talk authoritatively about legalities, as I’m not an attorney, but riddle me this:
It seems to me that it’s only fraud if they purposefully set about trying to have a disabled kid so as to get dinero out of the state. If this was their method, I mean, of bilking the government.
But what of their position that they didn’t set about trying to have a disabled kid, rather, a normal kid who happened to be deaf? Says them.
Then again, I s’pose you could also say “Well, shit. They say they don’t see the kid as disabled, yet they’re collecting state aid for the kid whom the government says is disabled”.
Hmmm. Sticky. I s’pose I’d have to revert to my “state definition” theory. Or perhaps I’m just a semantical champ.
I don’t see it that way, mostly because I don’t think anyone really wants to be pitied, even if they see their disability as a disability. I don’t see any way to prevent these women or their children from getting whatever benefits are available to the deaf,and I’m not really sure I want to .I wouldn’t quite see it as fraud. I would view it more the way I view people who buy houses right on the beach- it’s your business which house you buy, and really no one can stop you. But if the back half of your house is on stilts over the water, you should have thought about hurricanes when you bought it, and not look for help from the government after the fact. And these women should have thought about any extra burdens when they sought to increase the chances that the child would be deaf.
I think it does make a difference if it was a married couple, and it even would depending on how the sperm donor was picked (the article really didn’t say) I see a big difference between asking a close friend (or family member of the partner who didn’t give birth) who happens to be deaf to be the sperm donor, and ordering a donor with a long family history of deafness at the sperm bank. In the first method and in the case of marriage, deafness doesn’t seem likely to be the most important issue.
Okay, so it’s not intentional fraud, but your example of hurricanes and beachfront property is apt. In both cases, people willingly put themselves into high-risk situations, and then accept money for the problem that arises, even though it was their choice not to avoid the problem. I wonder if they could be refused aid on those grounds?
One could also suggest that those who have children who shall be recipients of Affirmative Action shouldn’t be having children as they knew prior to the child’s birth that there would be governmental intervention on the child’s behalf.
Now, I don’t think that’s true and I also don’t think it’s true that the couple in the news story related in the OP are intentionally having a child to get benefits for the child. They appear to be wishing to have a child “just like them.”
Any of y’all have family members who’ve adopted? Always somebody who’ll say, “But don’t you want a child just like you instead?” What if adoption is the only hope of having children for a couple? Adoption is one option for this couple, but they both (unless I missed something) are fertile females and thus there is yet another option. Now, I have religious objections to their planned method, but that’s my religion, not theirs and therefore they’re not constricted by its dictates. As it is, though, the planned method is possible and legal.
And there’s no guarantee that a donated sperm from a person with perfect hearing will not produce a deaf child or vice versa.
There’s more than one cultural issue going on in this scenario. And Mendel should’ve gotten another hobby!
**
Well, yes. But I assume that sign language is a “made up” (since “synthetic” got such a reaction) language in the sense that someone, at some point, sat down and designed its vocabulary and structure. Perhaps many someones did so. It seems unlikely that they would do so without any knowledge of what sign language already existed. As perverse as the notion is, perhaps they intentionally created mutually incomprehensible sign languages.
I would think it would be relatively easy to create an international standard sign language. I assume that many deaf children learn sign language from someone who learned it as a second language, perhaps a teacher or a hearing parent. When people learn, say, Italian, as a second language they learn a standardized language based on the dialect of Tuscany. In fact, Italian children studying Italian in school learn the standardized language. This is true even though many people are quite fluent in a local dialect that in many cases probably could qualify as different language.
It should, therefore, be much easier for all deaf people to learn a standard sign language than it would to teach every person in the world to speak English or Esperanto. Yet, consider this information on British Sign Language,
**
In other words, users of British Sign Language cannot communicate with users of American Sign Language. What is more, some British sign language users can’t even communicate with other British sign language users.
But linguistic differences just don’t accumlate that fast. For example, I can read seventeenth century English without difficulty. Moreover, as noted above, many people are learning sign language with the aid of a dictionary. I suppose you might, with time, develop sign language “accents” even using a standard dictionary and grammar. However, that’s not what we seem to be talking about here. We seem to be talking about completely different languages.
It doesn’t have to come to denying the children. What it may come to is even more red tape for disability applications: investigations to make sure the child’s parents didn’t wilfully ignore a risk to their child’s health. As if that process isn’t complicated enough.
**
Aren’t they? Is there a sort of ten-thousand-year-old proto-Indo-European sign language that all sign languages are descended from? This seems unlikely, but I don’t really know. That’s why I would have liked to see a brief history of sign language. I assume it would be impossible for a deaf sign language to develop before the seventeenth or, perhaps, eighteenth century because there would be no one for the deaf to sign to. Before that period, I imagine it would be impossible to accumlate the concentration of deaf people necessary to create a language. Before the seventeenth century, the vast majority of hearing people were isolated and uneducated, let alone deaf people.
I don’t. I said,
**
In other words, if I am a hearing parent and have a deaf child, I probably have to go and learn sign language myself before I can teach it to my child.
Nope. However, there are oral languages which are not descended from proto-Indo-European.
Okay. I see your point on that. A good, recent encyclopedia should have some info for you on this. I’ll look around the net and see if there’re any free, non-subscriber type encyclopedia sites that fit the bill; also same for Linguistics sites regarding Sign languages.
Be very wary of assumptions. They are quite often incorrect. We Humans have had the Deaf with us for quite some time.
Actually, it only requires one person to create a language and two people to create a shared language. Widespread languages are a different story, and thus we see the differences in both Signed languages around the world and oral languages around the world.
There was also the Sign language used between tribal groups in the Americas. That preceded the 17th Century.
Okay, but see again my comment about assumptions. First, there are those Deaf parents who, without benefit of intentionally going through artificial insemination to increase the likelihood of producing Deaf offspring, actually end up producing Deaf offspring. There are also Deaf parents who produce Hearing offspring. The language used in both situations at home is Sign Language. Therefore, the home language, the native language, is Sign Language.
I don’t think the notion is perverse, in the past communities were much more isolated than they are now, I think it would have been extremely difficult to set up any kind of international standard anything. I doubt there was any truly international standard for anything in pre-radio and/or telephone days. At least in regards something so naturally fluid as culture/language.
They may learn a standard in school, but you can bet they don’t speak like that at home.
Esperanto is an interesting example, it’s supposed to be truly international and standardised but it’s relatively modern so it has had the benefit of modern communications for most, if not all it’s lifetime. This would discourage regional differences. However, I’d be willing to bet that even that won’t be enough to keep the language standardised if it becomes more of a success, i.e. many more millions of speakers.**
[/QUOTE]
Got a cite for that first one? You may be able to read 17th centrury English with no problem. I like to think I could too, but what about someone for whom English is a second language? Or someone who has never been exposed to Shakespeare/Marlowe/pick-your-source? My SO is Czech and has a very good standard of English, with better spelling etc than some English people I know, yet she just cannot follow Shakespeare and get more than the merest gist of what’s going on.
Thanks for your response BTW, I’m not the heaviest of posters, although I’ve been here a while and it’s very pleasant to get involved in such a discussion.
Just incase anyone’s interested, my take on the deliberately-having-deaf-kids-issue is: I think they are selfish, self-deluded and in denial. But who isn’t to some degree?
~atarian.
Spelling and other mistakes left in as an exercise for the reader.
Saying that someone should go out and adopt a child instead of having their own ranks right down there with…gee, I don’t know. Exactly how low is that sentiment?
**
It wouldn’t be perverse if different sign languages developed independently. However, I think it would be perverse if someone sat down to design a sign language for, say, Portugal, and intentionally decided to make it incompatible with other sign languages. Consider this snippet about Swedish sign language,
**
From this, it appears that someone designed Swedish sign language from scratch but that Finnish sign language and Portuguese (!?) sign language are, in some way, derived from Swedish sign language though they are mutually incomprehensible.
Part of the problem is that I don’t really understand how sign languages developed. As I think I’ve said before, I assume that at some point, someone sat down and intentionally created them, just as Braille was intentionally created. I could be wrong. Modern English is heavily influenced by French. It seems unlikely, however, that Portugal suffered a massive invasion of Swedish deaf people ala Hastings.
**
True. But they can (or at least most of them can, sort of) speak standard Italian if they want to. I think my point was that when people learn to speak Italian as a second language, they typically learn standard Italian rather than a dialect.
**
Well, perhaps you’re correct about 17th Century English. But my point remains. Think, for example, of the US and the UK. They’ve been politically and, largely, linguistically separated for over two hundred years and, George Bernard Shaw’s opinion aside, the languages are still (almost) completely comprehensible.
I think your point about global communication and standardization is interesting. My thought is that it increases standardization but also increases the rate of linguistic evolution. The Internet is stunningly efficient at creating neologisms and spreading them to all corners of the globe virtually instantaneously. Those poor chaps at the OED must be having fits!
