<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How to sign integrate, integrator, integration, and integrating?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://benfletcher.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=202" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://benfletcher.com/?p=202</link>
	<description>A blog where creativity inspires</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:31:20 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: MM</title>
		<link>http://benfletcher.com/?p=202&#038;cpage=1#comment-1256</link>
		<dc:creator>MM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:23:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://benfletcher.com/?p=202#comment-1256</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve seen a number of signs used for integration, including &quot;With&quot;, &quot;Mix&quot;, &quot;Joined&quot; etc.. and all used one after another at times.  Deaf appear to break things down to the simplest explanation form they can, when faced with a word that puzzles..  Don&#039;t know about &#039;work with&#039; because that isn&#039;t integration, it is a job description ?   Integrator e.g.  &#039;Man/woman help mix people&#039;  was one display I saw, basic but accurate, but prone to misunderstandings.   &#039; facilitator was always used the same way, but as we know, they have different meanings.    A deaf  thesaurus, and a description in full of BSL grammar to put it on a true language footing for reference purposes, seems required.  BSL is using the same grammatical &#039;rules/associations&#039; as those used in English ?  I think the root issue is the BSL dictionary, not enough was done to consult educated deaf as to the best way forward on the new signs.  If others are going the way english was described, then purists are going to challenge that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve seen a number of signs used for integration, including &#8220;With&#8221;, &#8220;Mix&#8221;, &#8220;Joined&#8221; etc.. and all used one after another at times.  Deaf appear to break things down to the simplest explanation form they can, when faced with a word that puzzles..  Don&#8217;t know about &#8216;work with&#8217; because that isn&#8217;t integration, it is a job description ?   Integrator e.g.  &#8216;Man/woman help mix people&#8217;  was one display I saw, basic but accurate, but prone to misunderstandings.   &#8216; facilitator was always used the same way, but as we know, they have different meanings.    A deaf  thesaurus, and a description in full of BSL grammar to put it on a true language footing for reference purposes, seems required.  BSL is using the same grammatical &#8216;rules/associations&#8217; as those used in English ?  I think the root issue is the BSL dictionary, not enough was done to consult educated deaf as to the best way forward on the new signs.  If others are going the way english was described, then purists are going to challenge that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
