>
> Looking below, it seems to me that the dominant person always has the more
> flexible position, phonologically speaking, and so my temptation is to
> build
> in the asymmetry as a discourse element: The person with the dominant
> (thumb
> outside) grip speaks, and turns are taken. (I find this slightly
> unsatisfying, but it seems most practical.)
>

I agree that that bitstate should be built in somewhere, but I disagree that
it should be something as common as turn-taking. Just note how often you
switch in normal conversation - it can be every couple seconds. It *takes* a
couple seconds to do that switch, and is a very observer-obvious maneuver.

I like having both the sub and double positions with just touching the tip
> of the sub thumb (which, to me, implies a naming scheme in which these are
> named for the thumb and index finger, respectively – so maybe the three
> positions are default, "thumb-up" and "index-up").


I don't like this use of 'up' because it's too confusing, given that actual
spatial orientation may also be a variable. (Albeit, again, a rarely-used
one... perhaps pressure in the direction of a spatial orientation?)

I'd prefer to use the anatomical terms - supination/pronation,
distal/proximal, medial/lateral, etc - if necessary. Or terms referring to
the hand as a disembodied unit, e.g. inner vs outer.

But this is clearly just a preference of mine. :-P


> Of course, each of these
> places it's own limitations on the movements possible at that point:
> "thumb-up" doesn't allow a thumb squeeze; "index-up" doesn't allow the
> index
> finger to perform any movements at all (it seems to me).
>

Since I'm not sure which is which in yours, I'll use my terms.

Default: dom can do thumb squeeze; neither can do finger separation per se
(though sub can do a thumb-only analogue)
Double-dom: dom can't do thumb squeeze; sub can do finger separation
Sub-dom: dom can do finger separation; sub can do thumb squeeze



> Another possibility: What about extending dom thumb so that it makes
> contact
> with the sub wrist?


Possible, but requires significant torsion & is quite visible. Not sure on
how comfortable would be w/ partner, will need to test.


> Or, thumb sticking straight out, making no contact?
>

Again, possible but a little obvious. Also, in some claspings it won't be
*no* contact; at best it'll be only thumb-base contact.

Both seem quasi-stative to me; they could be interpreted either way though.


> > * disposition transitions: short-short, short-stroke, or stroke-*  (I
> > found stroke-stroke and stroke-short to be too hard to reliably do
> > differently)
> >  - short = minimal contact w/ other finger except as needed to transition
> >  - stroke = stroke up or down other finger during that segment of the
> > transition
>
> I'm not certain I understand what you mean by these. As far as I can
> interpret your descriptions, I'm unable to differentiate the second half of
> these transitions at all (it's all just "put finger into place"; perhaps
> this has to do with my interpretations of the dispositions as always having
> the point of contact on the tip of the sub thumb?).
>

Clasp your hands.

1. stroke dom thumb (d1) up sub thumb (s1) and down other side of it =
stroke-stroke def->sub-dom
2. separate d1, reengage at tip of s1 and stroke down other side =
short-stroke ditto
3. separate d1, reengage s1 only for insertion (no long downstroke) =
short-short ditto

For me doing the missing move is very difficult in actual practice (where
partner doesn't know to anticipate movement, there's some torsion, possibly
thumb size difference, etc) and easy on myself.

It strikes me that the first three of these have a markedness order: Knuckle
> > short gap > gap, in that knuckle press requires lifting and twisting the
> finger and short gap requires lifting.


To me knuckle press only requires shifting the finger slightly, no
retraction; short gap requires full retraction; and gap is default
(depending on degree of grip torsion).


> I have no trouble differentiating ring finger and pinky presses; I have
> lots
> of trouble differentiating middle/ring squeeze from ring/pinky squeeze.
>

Try thinking of it in terms of recipient fingers vs sender fingers.
Difference?

(Also note that unless you're trying this with an actual partner, results
will be different. Still informative, but will appear easier than actually
is.)


> Not certain what you mean by finger separation. Do you possibly mean
> extending all fingers so that the pads no longer make contact with the
> recipient's hand? If so, I don't see why this needs double-dominant grip;
> if
> not... well, it's another movement to add to the list.
>

Get double-dom. Then try to make an L with sub hand. That's finger
separation.


> Also, what about lifts of various fingers, as movements unto themselves?
>

Possible, but seems to be liable to cause perception issues, in that what is
perceived is a *lack* of baseline sensation, rather than a *sensation* per
se. Also, this may be confused w/ movements that are needed as part of
executing something else (e.g. a short gap press).

Interesting to explore, though.

I prefer these as motions, definitely. And along the same lines: a palm
> press seems a fairly distinctive motion to make (it's really just tortion
> but along the other main axis); similarly, a palm withdrawal might work
> out.
>

Hm. Palm press / lift seems likely to rely significantly on finger-join
leverage. Would this cause noise?


> I definitely prefer words to be all in one disposition, with any
> disposition
> change indicating the start of the word.


Sure - more generally 'state change' ('disposition' is just the thumb).
Though not exclusively bounded by a state change, I presume.


> (This ends up with the flavor of a
> self-segregating morphology, at least at the word level: a disposition
> change always signals a word boundary.


Yes.


> In cases where no disposition change
> would be necessary, you could add a movement derived from the disposition
> change: So a tap on the tip of the sub thumb in "thumb-up" and "index-up"
> positions, etc., though differentiating short and stroke changes then
> becomes tricky.)


This part I don't understand. Elaborate?


> This, of course, means that the initial phoneme of a word
> determines a particular subset of phonemes allowable for the rest of the
> word (i.e. a 1st knuckle press is impossible if the thumb is positioned on
> the sub wrist).
>

Well, the initial *phone* does. It's possible that one could consider wrist
(sw?) press allophonic with s1 press.

We haven't yet mapped out the allophones vs different states. Indeed, it
requires settling on a presser vs receiver method of coding presses first,
and that's been a bit ambiguous so far.


> Certain of the movements listed above can be superimposed, while others
> can't. So a press and a squeeze cannot (fluently) be done at once;


With the same fingers or overall?


> I also feel as though (for instance) 3rd and 4th gap presses at once would
> be hard
> to distinguisgh from just one or the other, while 1st and 4th together
> would
> be highly distinct.


I see this as being a matter of practice at first; I think one ought to be
able to distinguish them once acclimatized to trying.


> I see two routes here: Either we should ennumerate the
> possible movement combinations as phonemes unto themselves, or allow them
> as
> allophonic variations conditioned by quick speech (contractions, more or
> less). I see benefits and disadvantages to both sides.
>

Right. Or one could even have the 'shortness' of press
(knuckle/gap/shortgap) be a different bit than the finger coding itself; if
it's a bit that's encoding something that can be discarded (not sure what -
emphasis? evidentiality? etc) then one could ignore it in rapid speech and
just go with finger coding.

- Sai