En réponse à Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>: > > I'm hearing so much different figures on this that I can only conclude > that > definitions vary wildly. The last bigger thing on this I read claimed > that > something like 1-2% of the world's population was ambidextrous, 10-20% > left- > handed and the rest right-handed. Oh, and it's authors'd probably > considered "ambidextrous people with more or less inclination toward > left or > right" to be contradiction in terms. > That's because the idea that lateralisation is a continuum is not widely accepted. The same problem as with sexuality (being both left-handed and gay, I am painfully aware of the similarity between the oppression of both communities - and if you find "oppression" to be to big a word, I'll just remind you that I come from a country in which you still find teachers who, when they see a child using his left hand to write, punish him severely, sometimes physically, and oblige him to use his right hand. Luckily, they are a dying minority now, but thirty years ago they were the norm -). > How strongly right/left-handed count as "fully" to get your numbers? Quite strongly actually. > Would the > fact that I can operate my mobile phone with my left hand make me > ambidextrous > by your definition? No. Infact, I can probably make most things I can with > my > right hand with my left one, except writing and doing things requiring > my full > right-handed strength, only like ten times slower and more > inefficiently; I've > never met anyone who's thought that make me anything but perfectly > right- > handed. > And I think they are right. Still, when you take this definition, you get my figures, not anybody else's. Ambidextry is more pervasive than it seems, because it's usually invisible. Christophe. http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.