Page:The philology of the sign language.djvu/3

 Those of you who are Seniors and Juniors, and have studied Philology, know what it means. For those of you who have not yet taken up this subject I will explain that "philology" means literally "love of words" or, because of the fact that we study what we love, philology has come to mean the "scientific study of words or language"—how words came into being, from what languages they are descended, how they have been adopted into other languages, and how their meanings have gradually changed.

The Sign-language is as much a real language as any other. It is one of the oldest living languages, as is proved in the hieroglyphics, or picture writing, of Egypt, and the famous "dumb shows" or pantomimes of the old Greek and Roman days, or again in the gestures of the North American Indians. The conventional sign-language, as used in this country today, was brought here by Dr. Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, on his return from France, in 1816, and by his companion, Laurent Clerc, the gifted French deaf-mute. It was modified to suit American conditions, and has expanded naturally, in the course of time, as any living language does. Underneath all these gestures are certain underlying principles, and it seems to me that the time has come when those of us who love this language of signs ought to pause and study it, so that we may appreciate its beauties to their fullest extent.

If a child happens to be born in England or America, or any other English-speaking place, is that any reason why he should be allowed to grow up, just "picking up" the language wherever he happens to hear it, and not be taught its correct usages, or be led to an appreciation of its possibilities and beauties? Well-educated children of any nationality are carefully trained in their own language. We would think it absurd to allow them to use it with never a correction, or never a suggestion as to what was proper or beautiful. And yet that is virtually what we are doing today with the sign-language! Just because a child happens to be deaf, does not make him a good or correct sign-maker any more than, because a child happens to be able to hear, he should speak correctly and in a well-modulated voice, or, what is more, sing in public! And so, if we want our deaf friends to be able to express their thoughts correctly and accurately in the sign-language, even in ordinary conversations, but especially in public meetings, we must train them in the knowledge of the derivations and meanings of the signs.

It is not the province of a paper like this to go into the old discussion as to which is the better method of teaching the 3