2. There are an infinite number of colors.
3. It depends on which box of crayons you purchase.
4. There are only three colors the rest are just combinations
of those three.
Let's modify the question a bit: "How many different colors can
an artist create from a palate on which there are three globs of
paint: cyan, magenta, and yellow?" (subtractive)
Or how many colors can a computer screen depict by interpolating
a combination of red, green, and blue dots?" (additive)
If not "infinite" the answer is certainly a very, very large
So, are there just three colors or are there millions? The real
answer is, it depends on how you look at it.
I fear that sometimes people look at "sign language" and all
they see is "primary colors."
While it is tempting to announce that there are a "certain
number of signs" or that an average deaf person knows a certain
number of signs--doing so tends to vastly underestimate the
"colorfulness" and power of the language.
I once owned a paper-based dictionary of signs that contained
10,000 signs (20 years ago, published by the Oregon State School
for the Deaf (Salem). It was published as a set of two large
So, are there 10,000 signs? Does the average Deaf adult know
I see online dictionaries pushing well beyond that number of
I suppose I personally know around 15,000 "base signs" and how
to inflect (modify) most of those signs about five different
ways, thus I know 75,000 "signs." Note: Skilled signers know
how to inflect their signs via in the speed and path of
the movement, palm orientation, location, body posture, head
tilts, facial expressions, etc. They can easily inflect the sign
"tired" to mean "exhausted" or "strong" to mean "courageous."
Have you taught the gorillas how to inflect their signs? If we
both know "X" number of signs and I know how to inflect my signs
and the gorilla doesn't know how or at least not to the extent
that I do, then I have a larger vocabulary
than he does
even though we know the same
number of "signs."
Let's change topics for a moment.
Suppose we hand a small sharp knife to two different people.
Each knife has a relatively small, very sharp blade.
They are basically the same knife.
But the moment you hand that knife to two different people a
profound change is likely to take place.
For example in an average person's hands it remains a simple
knife useful for hobbies, but in a surgeon's hands it becomes a
What is the difference between a hobby-knife and a scalpel?
The real difference is in the knowledge of the user.
The average man can use a sharp blade to shave his chin or cut
his food. In the hands of a surgeon a knife can save lives and
create seeming miracles.
We could set up a comparison and ask "What is the average number
of knives a hobbyist owns compared with the average number of
knives a surgeon owns?"
A huge pile of scalpels on a surgeon's tray really is quite
meaningless since having more scalpels really doesn't affect the
outcome. It is the surgeon's knowledge and experience that
affect the outcome. The surgeon's knowing how and where to
slice is what gives value to the knife. If you needed a brain
operation and had $100,000 to spend, which would be more
valuable to you, a knife in the hands of a hobbyist, or in the
hands of a surgeon? What about a hundred knives in the hands of
a hundred hobbyists vs paying for one skilled surgeon?
The comparison is amusing but doesn't help you as a patient.
A knife in the hand of a hobbyist is not as valuable as one
in the hand of a surgeon. You are comparing two
different values. Knives to scalpels. Apples to oranges.
Let's make the comparison even less valid.
Hand the knife to an ape.
You can hand knives to gorillas and you can teach them sign
language and they will use the knives to dig for food and the
signs to "communicate."
But to compare the number of signs a gorilla knows to the number
of signs a human knows (even if they are the exact same signs)
is like comparing the number of knives a gorilla has to the
number of scalpels a surgeon has.
You can "hand" the exact same vocabulary word to a gorilla and
to a human. In the "hands" of a human it becomes a scalpel that
can be used to slice new meanings out of the air. In the hands
of a gorilla a signed vocabulary word remains just a "knife" --
useful for basic purposes, but the comparison is at not valid,
and at best--amusing.
But beyond being amusing, there is a danger. Just as having a
knife wielding monkey perform brain surgery would
be dangerous--it is also dangerous for well meaning researchers
to make superficial comparisons between the signing of humans
and that of apes. The two might seem the same but they are as
different as a knife is from a scalpel--yet for the same reason:
Apples to oranges.
Hmmm, better make that bananas
(Dr. V of Lifeprint.com ASLU)
p.s. I'm NOT comparing you to a knife wielding monkey. I'm sure
YOU are one of the good researchers who will consider and
reflect on the differences between human an primate signing as
you develop your research.
In a message dated 8/24/2007 5:20:07 A.M. Pacific
Daylight Time, an instructor @csuniv.edu writes:
Thanks so much for
your quick reply. Actually, I teach people ---
college students --- linguistics. One of our topics
is animals and human language. For years, I've been
intrigued by the work that Penny Patterson has done
with Koko the gorilla. I've begun to suspect that
Koko actually has the ability to use human language,
but this ability is degraded, well below what a
human can do (Koko's IQ, measured at 70, led me in
this direction). Your e-mail adds a lot of support
to my theory, since Koko's vocabulary, 6800 basic
signs (with no evidence, that I know of, one way or
another, of inflection), is well below what you
reported. Thanks so much for your help.
(Name on file)
Hello (Name on File),
I recall reading an interview that someone conducted
with Koko. At one point the interviewer wrote that Koko
had responded to a question by stating "I am the
Devil." The interviewer used this statement as basis
for criticism of Koko. I remember thinking, how
pathetic, that interviewer doesn't realize that the sign
"devil" can also be used to mean "mischievous." It was
obvious to me from the context of the question and her
response that Koko was just simply admitting him that
she was a "tease." Yet, because of his (or whatever
trainer or interpreter was being used that day)
unfamiliarity with the language, there was a egregious
error in interpreting her meaning.
Good luck with your research.
One of Penny's post-docs presented a paper about
Koko, "Phoneme Recognition in Mountain Gorillas".
Basically, Koko's understanding of spoken English is
phenomenal --- for an animal. If I duplicated the
experiment with a human who had normal hearing but
was forbidden to speak, s/he would run circles
around Koko. More evidence that Koko truly has and
can use human language but her ability is well below
that of humans.
(Name on file)