--- Carol Kirschenbaum <carolkir@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > A note on ASL: Learning how to read any language is > difficult, apparently, > if one relies on ASL, or some other signing > language, to the exclusion of > lip-reading (oralism). ASL is more of an affective > than a cognitive > language; it's closer to a "whole language" than one > with Indo-European > roots. (Ever watch a translating signer carefully? > It's not unlike miming, > or acting.) But without the automatic > subject-verb-object connection, > reading is a bear. *I am glad that this thread has finally managed to distinguish between ESL and ASL. However, I am not sure about "affective languages" vs. "cognitive languages," where the latter are apparently the languages with Indo-European roots. The non-Indo-European languages that I know about are no more mimetic than the European languages. Yes, there is a notion (unfortunately often propounded by the Chinese themselves) that the Chinese characters are mimetic, but if you have ever actually tried to read them you will be very cautious about believing this. Sign language, too, is not purely mimetic, otherwise there would be no need to spend years learning it. O.K. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html