[DoctorEldritch]

@Saka Oh my, I did not realise the variety there is close to language variety. I get how LSQ would be different from BSL and ASL, but wonder why ASL and BSL are very different?

[Saka]

@DoctorEldritch They just developed independently from each other. The spoken language in the region doesn't really affect the sign language much.

[DoctorEldritch]

@Saka It is interesting how they were developed independently from each other. I know Plains Indian Sign Language existed much longer than the others, even back in the 1500s, maybe ASL took something from that and that's why it is different?

[Saka]

@DoctorEldritch Apparently ASL is largely based on local sign languages from the areas. Deaf people rarely travel much, as communicating with the world poses a large problem, and in the past when there were no aids in hearing it was even harder. Even with hearing aids and cochlear implants, deaf people who can speak multiple spoken languages are in a minority.

[DoctorEldritch]

@Saka What about the International Sign? It is very new and a bit artificial (sort of like Esperanto) but it is adopted at multinational events like Deaflympics or Eurovision. I think they intended International Sign to be an option to make deaf people travelling easier, even if more for big international events.

[Saka]

@DoctorEldritch I don't know much about it, but apparently it is not an actual complete language, but rather a set of common phrases. They are also not set in stone, but rather agreed on by the sides? And their origin would be some widely recognised signs from other sign languages. Interesting.

[DoctorEldritch]

@Saka So it's like an analogue of "tourist dictionary", maybe? The thing that helps you ask for time or directions or order something in a restaurant, but would not help you to have an actual conversation?

[Saka]

@DoctorEldritch It seems to be something like that indeed. It doesn't have a proper grammar structure, and sign languages actually do have that, just with a different logic than in verbal languages.

(There is such a thing as SEE - Signed Exact English, but many people in the Deaf community consider it an abomination)

[DoctorEldritch]

If sign language is based on spoken language, as in, designed to communicate it non-verbally, then no surprise that sign language adopts similar grammar. Though it may too depend on the source, grammatical strictness of languages. There are languages with different flexibility, for example, Chinese or Russian are more flexible than English or German, and then there is also SOV vs SVO dominant constructs to consider, and how clauses are connected, like how Japanese is more likely to use one long sentence while in English it would be more natural to use several smaller sentences instead.

No wonder then that given the complexity and variety of written/spoken grammar structure, that sign language would have it too. What logic does it use, though?

Originally Posted by Saka

(There is such a thing as SEE - Signed Exact English, but many people in the Deaf community consider it an abomination)

Why?

[Saka]

The grammar is going to be specific for each language, but because unlike in verbal languages there is no flexion, the order of words is going to determine the precise meaning of the sentence.

(That is also done in some verbal languages, the word order would show where the emphasis is)

This website, despite a bit hard to digest format, is one of the recommended free resources for ASL: http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/page...ut/grammar.htm

The SEE is controversial because it follows the flow of spoken English becoming rather confusing for the people who use ASL as their first language. ASL is seen as something sacred by the culturally Deaf people and it shouldn't be modified to accommodate hearing people.