Re: A gripping language, and a question about suprasegmental analysis (WAS: re: conlanging partners)

Hi, Sai!

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Sai Emrys wrote: 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Sai Emrys wrote:
> > recently we started figuring out how we might be able to make a conlang entirely mediated
> > by touch (of the sort where we could talk to each other discretely,
> > masked by normal behavior like holding hands).
> 
> So, we discussed this again more recently.
> 
> To specify the domain better, the language we're trying to make should be:
> * able to communicate simple and maybe meta* things (doesn't need to
> be capable of Shakespeare or neuroscience)
> * communicable entirely by the speakers' hands being grasped together
> or the like (as is socially normal for couples in most situations -
> though I'd like to expand this to other forms of casual touch also)
> 
> By "meta", I mean that the grip-language may occur in parallel to an
> ongoing, and separately sensible, acoustic language - and would act as
> some sort of meta-commentary to it in real time.
> 
> 
> First, one thing came up that's a philosophical? question of analysis.
> 
> One phonetic feature of the domain is that the primary two grips
> (opposite hands gripping, thumbs same direction, palms together,
> fingers interlaced) are symmetrically asymmetric - A's thumb is either
> outside or inside B's.
> 
> Switching between these two grips (let's call them A or B dominant
> based on whose thumb is on the outside) is a relatively elaborate
> cascade or disengage-reëngage process, thus seems like something that
> would not be done frequently.
Agreed.
> 
> Alex's analogy for this was to vowel harmony & suprasegmental features
> more generally, which I think is apt.
> 
> The question is, does one analyze the words [k2r2m] vs [korom] as:
> a) being phonemically /k2r2m/ vs /korom/, with an non-semantic rule
> that vowels are supposed to be frontness-harmonic, or
> b) being phonemically both /k$r$m/ where $ signifies a mid rounded
> vowel, frontness unspecified, and frontness is a separate bit property
> of the whole word
Can't answer this one!  The only langs I know of with supposed 
vowel harmony actually have three vowels rather than five or 
more, and the rules for harmony are just recent _orthographic_ 
rules for determining which of the "allographs" [o] and [u]
of ROUND goes with which of the "allographs" [i] and [e]
of TENSE; thus "kurum" and "korom" would both be legal 
spellings of the phoneme sequence /k$r$m/ where $ is 
ROUND, but neither "kurom" nor "korum" would be legal 
spellings.  Certainly there'd be no difference in meaning,
since the unique word would be /k$r$m/.  I guess, with your
pair of vowels [2] and [o], whether they represent the same 
phoneme has to be resolve in the usual way - by the lack or
otherwise of minimal pairs involving them.

I mean, how would you analyse the following?

In spoken Malay, if you ask where something or someone
is, you may be told: "Sana" - ie "there".  Or you may instead
hear: "Saaaana" with lengthened first vowel and higher first
syllable pitch, meaning "way over there".  Phonologically,
the usual word "sana" has its first a two or three times as long 
as the second; but phonemically, it is never analysed as a 
"long a", nor written as "aa".  In writing, too, the second answer
would be written simply as "sana"; however, the actual length
is considerably greater, and the meaning is demonstrably 
different.  Wouldn't you consider this a good case for writing
"Saana" to represent "way over there"?  To my _ear_, which
is, I think, the linguist's greatest asset, there is definitely a
different phoneme involved in the two utterances.  However,
I don't hear a difference of kind between this "saana" and 
other, similary intensified, words and phrases (eg "Aduh!" -
"Ouch!" vs. "Aduuh!" - "OUCH!") so it would be simpler -
paucous indeed! - to argue for a suprasegmental emphasis
phoneme.
> 
> Another example from ASL is hand dominance. E.g. HELP is dominant hand
> /A/ resting on base /B/; dominance is a non-phonological property in
> ASL (except in explicitly visual-spatial context). One could however
> analyze this as actually being two distinct signs, left A on right B
> vs right A on left B, with some handwaving about some signers
> preferring one over another form, but being allophonic.
> 
> However, suppose that I were to create ASL', in which using reverse
> dominance to one's true dominance carries ironic pragma. How then
> would one analyze it - as being a feature of each phone, of each
> phoneme, of each "word" (granted that 'word' is a bit ambiguous in
> ASL), or of a sentence / utterance overall? At some level it is
> specified, and at the levels below that it is not.
A possible ambiguity arises here - would you spek this language 
with "just anyone", or only with those who know which of your hands 
is dominant?  Still, that could be just part of saying "hallo" - "Hi, my 
name is Sai of the Strong Right Hand".

> 
> My preference is to analyze this sort of thing as being a bit
> "belonging to" the level at which it changes meaning - so if e.g.
> [k2r2m] vs [korom] is cat vs dog, then that's to the word itself; if
> it's ironic vs normal then it's to the utterance overall (unless it's
> just that word that's emphasizedly ironic, in which case the word
> again); and if yet it's indicative of deferential vs superior
> politeness marking, then certainly to the entire utterance or even the
> discourse.
> 
> I'd be interested to read y'alls' thoughts on this.

Overall, I like your levelled analysis.

> 
> Second, we made a preliminary pass at enumerating the phonological
> inventory. This is divided into a few semi-parallelized channels:
> 
[all somewhat fully enumerated - SNIPt]
> 
> 
> Some possible issues with the domain:
> * for me (though not for Alex), fourth and fifth finger action is not
> entirely seperable (so there will be noise between the two)
Would be an issue for most "speakers".  Anyone learning 
piano knows how hard they have to work on producing 
completely independent motion of the last three fingers; 
some never achieve it.

> * we have different grip dominance preference (interlace your fingers
> together - which way do you prefer? I like my right thumb dominant, he
> likes left), so one of us is always a bit awkward with a grip
Correlates (I believe) with handedness - dominant hand has 
a dominant thumb.  Any two people with opposite hand
dominance will thus likely have opposite grip dominance, 
which leads to an inevitable clash between the thumbs of 
their two grasping hands - if both dominant, both fight to 
lie above the other, and vice versa.  But for the statistically
more likely combination of people with the same hand 
dominant, if the two walk or stand side by side, the grip
will have one dominant and one non-dominant hand,
and thus not clash.

Did you ever find yourself having to negotiate a hand grip?
It can be quite funny (to watch!) and the battle can go on for 
thirty seconds or more until it's settled.

> * Alex dislikes the double dominant position for being too squeezy,
> for making thumb usefulness worse, and magnifying grip asymmetry
I think it would be too restrictive to use.

> * thumb disposition and grip both significantly affect the motions one
> can do, and the perception of them; one issue e.g. is whether to code
> recipient xor presser finger as phonological
Clarity of utterance is important - I suggest a light grip
might work better than a tight one.

Recipient knows much better, without looking, which
of his fingers was pressed.  Consider this grip lang as
an adjunct lang for those with vision problems - you'd
want to de-emphasize sight as thoroughly as possible.

> Suggestions?
Yep, here's one - consider the recipient's hand as a keyboard,
more like a piano than a QWERTY computer keyboard.  Then
each knuckle or phalange pressed could represent a sound, 
and each combination of knuckles and phalanges could represent 
a word.

> Anyone done similar?
> 
> Any languages for deaf-blind worth stealing from (e.g. that aren't
> just some originally-for-sighted sign language done using recipient
> hands to feel the signer's)?
> 
> - Sai
Good questions!

Regards,
Yahya

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahya Abdal-Aziz

Enjoy learning about Uiama, a conlang (constructed language) at: 
http://conlang.pbwiki.com/Uiama

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply