Or to put it a different way, exactly what I said? 
Well, no, you said something about their “icons” (the word is “characters”) being similar. I was trying to explain that writing systems and linguistic affiliation have little to do with one another. That was a point you still didn’t seem to grasp.
No, that’s what you said (above). And it was very confusing. How is Japanese similar to Chinese in “the basic concept of language”? What is “the basic concept of language” anyway?
I read it like the others in this thread read it-- that you thought the two languages were similar. THey’re not. They’re not even related in any known way (other than some borrowed words and a borrowed writing system).
Yeah, I would say that to a linguist, referring to writing systems as a means of arguing for the similarity of two languages is tantamount to arguing to a biologist that two people are related because they wear similar clothing.
Oh for Christ’s sake. The basic concept I was talking about were the symbols/icons used. I was using “symbols” and “icons” interchangeably. Which they are in common parlance. I apologize for not being an expert in the semantics of describing written language. I’m starting to wonder why my lack of mention regarding Arabic or Hebrew written forms hasn’t been brought up. Japanese, Chinese and Korean use symbols. Or icons. Or whatever the hell word you learn when graduating from Harvard with a PhD. I figured you may have known what I meant.
Trying to solicit opinon and views is awfully tiresome. I think I shall cease for awhile.
Well, yeah. That is what I said.
duffer, I think that if you’d said, " I had no idea that WRITTEN Japanese and Chinese were fundamentally different" or " I had no idea that SPOKEN Japanese and Chinese were fundamentally different," folks would have understood what you meant better. As it is, I’m still not clear which of these you meant, if either.
Are you clear, however, on the idea that ASL is a complex, natural language that’s not intelligible to folks trained in (for example) Nicaraguan sign language? If not, I highly recommend picking up The Language Instinct and flipping through the first couple of chapters for the bit he writes about sign languages; it’s fascinating and informative.
Daniel
Korean uses an alphabet called Hangul. It did use the Chinese writing system in the past, but not anymore.
If you didn’t make declarative statements that were wildly inaccurate, you’d get rid of 90% of the problems you’ve been having in this thread.
I thought I covered the fact I was ignorant on that aspect. There are more sign structures than ASL. One admission of not knowing better, a second for clarifying I didn’t know. How bout I get the third out of the way and just declare stupidity? I get it. There are more sign languages than I ever dreamed. What more do you want?
They were declarations only in the sense that I was stating what my limited intelligence allowed me in seeing the overall picture of sign. I apologize for offending delicate sensibilities, but it was a legitimate idea that I wanted to get arguments for and against in a broader sense. I wasn’t making law by fiat on what sign is and isn’t.
This is little more than an argument of semantics and really not what I was trying to accomplish. How about we just kill the thread and move on? I clearly don’t belong here yet.
Good grief, man. I don’t want anything. I’m recommending a book that’s interesting and that can alleviate some of your (perfectly forgiveable) ignorance on the subject. Just read the chapter about sign languages; you’ll thank me for the recommendation.
Daniel
Dan, as I reread after hitting submit, I noticed I hadn’t acknowledged the reference to the book. I meant to tell you I’d check it out. Thanks. :o
I’d just like to say I am conversational in ASL and I can make myself understood for someone that was not raised with the usage. I have, however had friends, a roommate and a girlfriend (briefly) that were deaf. Speaking to a couple of things mentioned here I’d like to add:
Conveying emotion- Two of my deaf buddies shared an apartment and if you had ever been there when they argued you’d know the extent of the emotion. A raging battle, in dead silence, with quick movements and exaggerated gestures. Almost funny to watch, especially when I could only pick out a word/phrase here and there. Oh, and when one would finish his argument, he’d suddenly turn his back on the other, effectively shutting him up. Man, that pissed him off.
Complexity and nuance- Oh yeah. Sometimes a brief movement across a room can carry a great deal of meaning.
Difficulties were talking in a poorly lit room or while driving in a car. Talking or
listening to a signer while driving can be a thrill.
Once we were carrying laundry back from the laundry mat and with both hands full we were suddenly, and surprisingly, muted. It was very uncomfortable and caught me by surprise when it happened. We couldn’t speak until we got back to the apartment and dropped the load.
As to clarity and no mis-communication, you should go drinking with these guys. The “slurring” gets progressively worse (and my ability to follow along) as the evening passes.
Also, a “round table discussion” is difficult IMO as you must look directly at the one speaking to you and if someone else “chimes in” you will not “hear” it. Multi-person debates are tough.
It is hard to have a private discussion in public. Anyone who knows ASL can follow your discussion from across the room. There really is no way to whisper.
Just a few thoughts. Interesting OP.
BTW, I love ASL and love to watch it. Much of it is very fluid and has a certain grace to it. I also like that a persons name is unique. One John will have a different gesture for his name than another John. You can have a conversation like “Do you know John? No? How about John? Then John perhaps?” And it would make perfect sense to the speakers.
And yes, I know most all the swear words. 
I’m sorry - I’m not trying to attack you here and I don’t know why you’re taking the things we say this way. It’s just that you seem to have a lot of misconceptions and these things - the nature of sign languages in particular - are vital to understanding whether a sign language is workable as an auxiliary. I don’t mean to ridicule you here - it’s just that without a basis for discussion it won’t be productive.
I don’t recommend The Language Instinct, incidentally. It includes a reasonable overview of some aspects of linguistics, but its primary purpose is to advance a particular theoretical perspective to nonlinguists. It deliberately pushes a particular viewpoint to an audience that can’t necessarily contextualize or dispute its arguments.
Is one of them what I think it is? 
I think it’s pretty clear that it’s doing that, though: the author never hides the fact that he’s making an argument.
I’m specifically recommending the bits on sign language. If those were argumentative and controversial, then I misunderstood; those seemed to me more like a survey than an argument.
Daniel
I don’t disagree with Pinker’s general overview of languages; I just see his attempts to promote Chomskyan nativism among people who don’t know the entire argument in question as somewhat sleazy, so I’m loathe to see the book pushed. It’s an interesting read, to be sure, and parts of it are quite good. But I don’t like his overall attempts to sway people who don’t have a knowledge of the other half of the debate.
Eh. Honestly, I’m not too concerned. I figure that if someone on the other side wants to publish a book as lucid and entertaining as his, I’ll read that, too; but meanwhile, it’s not as if I’m voting based on the book. (For what it’s worth, I came away understanding him to disagree with Chomsky far more than he agrees–maybe he wasn’t so lucid after all!)
Daniel
Yes. Yes it is.
People have said most of what I was going to say, and much more lucidly, I might add. I just wanted to mention, briefly, that ASL is not one monolithic, unified language. Like any other natural language, it has dialects and variation. An interesting paper I say at a conference earlier this month was on phonological variation in ASL. From the abstract:
which can be found on this pdf.
Also, I was wondering what people thought about the merits of a universal language in general? If this is a hijack, I may go start a new thread about it…
Are we talking about a new language that’s universal, or getting rid of all languages but one? The former I find impractical; the latter I find impractical and odious.
There have been many, many attempts to make a universal language. The only time anyone’s come close, as I understand it, is when someone proposes a Lingua Franca such as Latin or English or one other that I’m forgetting. You take the language spoken by folks with the most political/financial/military power and make it the default for communication. Far from everyone speaks it, and it’s got unpleasant imperialist connotations, but at least it sorta works.
When folks try to make a new universal language–well, Esperanto’s the best try in modern times, and please raise your hand if you can speak a sentence in Esperanto. I’m asking a crowd of pretty bright people who are interested in the topic here. How many hands are up?
Replacing all languages with a universal language would be terribly impoverishing; fortunately, it’s not remotely practical.
Daniel