Submitted by Van Zile et al. - October 11, 2001
[Following are excerpts from comments originally posted on LabanTalk in September, 2001]
Posting 1. Judy Van Zile September 20, 2001
Can anyone clarify for me--is there consistent agreement--
Is an empty turn sign in a gesture column a motion or destination statement?
It is my understanding that a turn sign in a gesture column with a measurement sign in it is a destinational statement--e.g., turn to the point where you are outwardly rotated a little from the normal state. The action to arrive there may be turning inward or outward, but it is the final destination that is stated.
Does the same hold true for an empty turn sign in a gesture column? Does it say "go to the point where you are outwardly rotated any amount" --and therefore, depending on where you started, the action might be one of turning either in or out?
E.g., in the Hutchinson text, [Labanotation] example 409a, p. 284 --There is no stated rotation for the legs in the starting position. If I had started in a very outwardly rotated state, could I finish still outwardly rotated, but just not as much--i.e., the rotation is a motion description telling me the action to do--to turn inward any amount I want? Or must I finish inwardly rotated--the statement is a destination description telling me to finish in any inwardly rotated state I choose?
[Following is the example in Labanotation referred to in Judy's posting].
Posting 2. Ilene Fox, September 20, 2001
[responding to Judy Van Zile's September 20 posting]
[Judy wrote]: IS AN EMPTY TURN SIGN IN A GESTURE COLUMN A MOTION OR DESTINATION STATEMENT?
[Ilene responds] I have understood it to be destinational. The destination of inward or outward is specified, the amount is left free.
[Judy wrote]: E.G., IN THE HUTCHINSON TEXT, EXAMPLE 409A, P. 284--THERE IS NO STATED ROTATION FOR THE LEGS IN THE STARTING POSITION. IF I HAD STARTED IN A VERY OUTWARDLY ROTATED STATE, COULD I FINISH STILL OUTWARDLY ROTATED, BUT JUST NOT AS MUCH--I.E., THE ROTATION IS A MOTION DESCRIPTION TELLING ME THE ACTION TO DO--TO TURN INWARD ANY AMOUNT I WANT? OR MUST I FINISH INWARDLY ROTATED--THE STATEMENT IS A DESTINATION DESCRIPTION TELLING ME TO FINISH IN ANY INWARDLY ROTATED STATE I CHOOSE?
[Ilene responds] I would understand you must finish inwardly rotated, with the amount of inward rotation being unspecified.
Posting 3. Lucy Venable, September 20, 2001
[Judy wrote]: IS AN EMPTY TURN SIGN IN A GESTURE COLUMN A MOTION OR DESTINATION STATEMENT?
[Lucy responds]: My understanding of rotations/twists for gestures seems to make it destinational - you see the kind of rotation indicated in the notation in the resultant movement. I don't know that I have ever had to state that, so your question is an interesting one. When you use a black pin to say how much you rotate inward for example, you would not necessarily reach an inwardly rotated state because this is movement description. On the other hand the white pin within the rotation sign would take you to a particular destination in relation to the untwisted state. When there is a small or large rotation/twist I would understand this to be destinational as well in terms of seeing the kind of rotation in the resultant movement that is in the notation. (but Ilene answers this more simply!)
[Judy wrote]: IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A TURN SIGN IN A GESTURE COLUMN WITH A MEASUREMENT SIGN IN IT IS A DESTINATIONAL STATEMENT--E.G., TURN TO THE POINT WHERE YOU ARE OUTWARDLY ROTATED A LITTLE FROM THE NORMAL STATE. THE ACTION TO ARRIVE THERE MAY BE TURNING INWARD OR OUTWARD, BUT IT IS THE FINAL DESTINATION THAT IS STATED.
[Lucy responds] Yes.
[Judy wrote]: DOES THE SAME HOLD TRUE FOR AN EMPTY TURN SIGN IN A GESTURE COLUMN? DOES IT SAY "GO TO THE POINT WHERE YOU ARE OUTWARDLY ROTATED ANY AMOUNT"--AND THEREFORE, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU STARTED, THE ACTION MIGHT BE ONE OF TURNING EITHER IN OR OUT?
[Lucy responds] Yes.
[Judy wrote]: E.G., IN THE HUTCHINSON TEXT, EXAMPLE 409A, P. 284--THERE IS NO STATED ROTATION FOR THE LEGS IN THE STARTING POSITION. IF I HAD STARTED IN A VERY OUTWARDLY ROTATED STATE, COULD I FINISH STILL OUTWARDLY ROTATED, BUT JUST NOT AS MUCH--I.E., THE ROTATION IS A MOTION DESCRIPTION TELLING ME THE ACTION TO DO--TO TURN INWARD ANY AMOUNT I WANT? OR MUST I FINISH INWARDLY ROTATED--THE STATEMENT IS A DESTINATION DESCRIPTION TELLING ME TO FINISH IN ANY INWARDLY ROTATED STATE I CHOOSE?
[Lucy responds]: Inwardly rotated.
Posting 4. Janos Fugedi, September 24, 2001
[responding to Judy Van Zile's September 20 posting]
First let me tell you Maria Szentpal's usage: She regards the empty rotation symbol as one in the measurement series, somewhere between the 45 and 90 degrees, about 60-70 degrees, not exactly stated. So in this respect she takes it destinational.
But for me it seems that your questions point far beyond the actual ones you asked us. The base is how to make difference between a motion and a destination indication once I need the pure motion. I think AHG [Ann Hutchinson Guest] ran into the same problem when she wanted to indicate pure flexion without any measurement, just the motion itself. She could not, because the x itself has the meaning of the amount as well.
I proposed that she introduce a separate indication for flexion; then we could indicate the amount independently from the movement itself. So I think it would be a much better approach to all movement indications to separate the movement as such and the measurement included. Although one may say that there is no movement without measurement (which is true), many times the measurement is not important, especially in the case of small movements. (It also could be mentioned that we do not have a sign for rotation as such; we automatically include the direction. How to develop a movement language without being able to express abstract notions, like in verbal communication?)
So getting back to your original question, I would like to see the empty rotation sign express only rotation as a motion, and the measurement which defines its destiny, although the inherent direction indication itself may disturb this logic. This change goes very deep in the system orthography and affects tradition heavily; therefore it is hopeless to expect any acceptance.
To your specific question:
[Judy wrote] E.G., IN THE HUTCHINSON TEXT, EXAMPLE 409A, P. 284--THERE IS NO STATED ROTATION FOR THE LEGS IN THE STARTING POSITION. IF I HAD STARTED IN A VERY OUTWARDLY ROTATED STATE, COULD I FINISH STILL OUTWARDLY ROTATED, BUT JUST NOT AS MUCH--I.E., THE ROTATION IS A MOTION DESCRIPTION TELLING ME THE ACTION TO DO--TO TURN INWARD ANY AMOUNT I WANT? OR MUST I FINISH INWARDLY ROTATED--THE STATEMENT IS A DESTINATION DESCRIPTION TELLING ME TO FINISH IN ANY INWARDLY ROTATED STATE I CHOOSE?
[Janos responds] Following the presently valid logic: I join the other responses, inwardly rotated.
Posting 5. Odette Blum, September 26, 2001
[responding to Judy Van Zile's September 20 posting]
A blank turn sign merely leaves the amount of rotation to the reader, it does not change the meaning of the symbol which states the type of rotation - inward or outward. From that point of view it is destinational.
For motion perhaps the turn sign could be placed in the "going away from" symbol. I am not sure how it would read if the opposite turn symbol was placed in a "going towards" symbol (e.g., a turn out from a turned-in state) i.e., whether you would be less turned in or go into a turned out state?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment