394 SIGN LANGUAGE AMONG NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS. 
opposed statements, one of which must be false, but the finger-position 
coming to be established for two tongues has relation to the original con- 
ception whether or not made near or in reference to the mouth, the latter 
being understood. 
It will thus be seen that sometimes the position of the fingers is ma- 
terial as forming or suggesting a figure without reference to motion, 
while in other cases the relative position of the hands to each other and 
to parts of the body are significant without any special arrangement of 
the fingers. Again, in others, the lines drawn in the air by the hand or 
hands execute the conception without further detail. In each case only 
the essential details, when they can be ascertained, should be minutely 
described. 
SUGGESTIONS FOR COLLECTING SIGNS. 
The object always should be, not to translate from English into signs, 
but to ascertain the real signs and their meaning. By far the most sat- 
isfactory mode of obtaining this result is toinduce Indians or other gest- 
urers observed to tell stories, make speeches, or hold talks in gesture, 
with one of themselves as interpreter in his own oral language if the 
latter is understood by the observer, and, if not, the words, not the signs, 
should be translated by an intermediary linguistic interpreter. It will be 
easy afterward to dissect and separate the particular signs used. This 
mode will determine the genuine shade of meaning of each sign, and 
corresponds with the plan now adopted by the Bureau of Ethnology for 
the study of the tribal vocal languages, instead of that arising out of 
exclusively missionary purposes, which was to force a translation of the 
Bible from a tongue not adapted to its terms and ideas, and then to 
compile a grammar and dictionary from the artificial result. A little 
ingenuity will direct the more intelligent or complaisant gesturers to the 
expression of the thoughts, signs for which are specially sought; and 
full orderly descriptions of such tales and talks with or even without 
analysis and illustration are more desired than any other form of con- 
tribution. 
The original authorities, or the best evidence, for Indian signs—. e., 
the Indians themselves—being still accessible, the collaborators in this 
work should not be content with secondary authority. White sign talk- 
ers and interpreters may give some genuine sigus, but they are very apt 
to interpolate their own improvements. Experience has ‘led to the ap- 
parently paradoxical judgment that the direct contribution of signs pur- 
porting to be those of Indians, made by a habitual practitioner of signs 
who is not an Indian, is less valuable than that of a discriminating 
observer who is not himself an actor in gesture speech. The former, 
being to himself the best authority, unwittingly invents and modifies 
signs, or describes what he thinks they ought to be, often with a very 
different conception from that of an Indian. Sign language not being 
fixed and limited, as is the case with oral languages, expertness in it is 
