Enchiridion-hand book:

From Latin enchiridion, from Greek encheiridion, from en- (in) + cheir (hand) + -idion (diminutive suffix). Ultimately from the Indo-European root ghes- (hand) that also gave us cheiromancy (palmistry), chiral (not superimposable on its mirror image), and surgeon (literally, one who works with hands). Earliest documented use: 1541.

With these examples I miss the word chiropractor. I add it because this kind of therapy once relieved me from a very painfully blocked neck nerve in three sessions. No medication, just hands.

chiropractic coined in Amer.Eng. 1898, from chiro- "hand" + praktikos "practical" (see practical), the whole of it loosely meant as "done by hand."
chiropractor
1904, agent noun in Latin form from chiropractic (q.v.).

There is also a rarish word: chironomy 'the study of hand gestures' or 'using hand gestures to direct vocal performances'.

I see, ( dictionaries ) didn't know it was a study or science, but it is an amusing and interesting field. Some hand gestures are universal as I've noticed driving in different countries.

As a child I was fascinated by the hand movements of the conductor. What did it all mean? We used to emulate the movements without understanding at all.

Some conductors convey a great deal of information with simple, subtle gestures. Others make grand and elegant flourishes that only confuse.

...and entertain.

just as a matter of exactitude, chironomy (in the classical sense, and it's not used much otherwise) was the use of hand gestures without an accompanying score.

link

Choirs, gospel or otherwise would be an example of this context

Good link Ts

could chironomy also describe the practice of semaphore?

chironomy (in the classical sense, and it's not used much otherwise) was the use of hand gestures without an accompanying score

It was a branch of rhetoric. I have a reprint of a manual of chironomy from the early in the 19th century and it's a listing of gestures to be used for rhetorical effect when declaiing a speech or when acting on the stage. I ran across the book while researching traditional gestures in 18th and 19th century performances of Hamlet (as a lark, not for monetary gain).

I have never run across the word to mean what a choir director does, but I have seen some of those people use hand gestures to urge the singers along.

Ha, I like that : urge the singers along.:-)

The choir conductor's hands do mostly the same thing as the orchestra conductor's. When you sing in a choir without looking at the conductor's head and hand gestures you risk to derail and become a misplaced and disturbing solo singer.

zmjezhd: Despite appearances, this is not a facetious reply: What a choral director does is conduct. The information conveyed by hand gestures (and by facial expression, though that is not so obvious to the audience) covers a lot of territory. In the first place, the tempo of the piece or, section of the piece, if the tempo varies, is established. Unlike an orchestral conductor a c.d. may not continue to mark the tempo through the piece except as need, choosing instead to indicate staccato or legato (notes separated or flowing together), loud or soft passages, accented notes, technical reminders of singing style, cues for entrances, cutoffs, sustained notes, accented notes, growing or diminishing volume, reminders to think a pitch a bit high so that it will not be sung flat (low). If necessary, the c.d. may choose to use Kodály Method hand signs to indicate specific relative pitches, although by concert time that should not be necessary. In a concert, much of what the c.d. does is to make adjustments: basses should sing a bit louder, sopranos should be careful of the vowel pronunciation on a particularly high note, altos need to show a bit more energy.

In most cases gestures do not have to be explained to the singers. They are a form of mime, mostly self-explanatory, a visual manifestation of the sound. Choral conducting seems to be an individual sport: each director has a style. If there is a systematized list of standard gestures (other than the Kodály) with a particular designation I have not run across it. I'll ask my choral director.

BranShea: In my experience the styles of orchestral and choral conducting are quite different, even when done by one individual, and even when conducting both in the same piece. We recently performed Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, and it was always easy to tell from the gestures whether the conductor was focused on the choir or the orchestra at any given moment. But yes, the overall purpose is essentially the same.

Yep, that was in short ;-) what I meant to say too. [I was an a capella choirster.]

Despite appearances, this is not a facetious reply:

Well, I have observed both conductors conducting an orchestra and choir directors using chironomy to guide a choir, and my observations lead me to distinguish the two practices. That's all. As I said, for me the word has its 18th/19th century rhetorical meaning, but that was the first definition I came across.

It comes from ancient times and had a spiritual meaning where as now with orchestras and choirs it has the more practical purpose to lead the assembled musicians. Although with really great musical performances the spiritual part comes into it as well. I saw Kristjan Järvi in action this summer. He jumped and stepped and danced so it was more head, shoulders, knee and toe chironomy.
Great concert.

I had a long conversation with my conductor/director friend at dinner this evening, in which I did not introduce the word chironomy, but did ask if he knew a word that encompassed or described the gestures of choral conducting. He was unaware of any such term. I suspect that its modern use is limited and fairly specific, but that conclusion is based on not much knowledge at all. I have, by email, asked my friend to investigate this term using his insider status in the field, hoping that he will broach the question to colleagues throughout the country. As he is very busy, not much may come of it, but I hope for some response.

This man explains something about the tradional thing, though it seems to go back long beyond the Jewish tradition.

Link

This man explains something about the tradional thing, though it seems to go back long beyond the Jewish tradition.

Pretty good. I have a book comparing the Indo-European ans Semitic languages written by Professor Saul Levin. While we're on Jewish liturgy and hands, there is an instrument one uses while reading the Torah scroll in temple called a yad 'hand' (in Hebrew, also the name of the letter). It is in the shape of a hand withe index finger extended. Rather than put one's real finger under the words as you are reading, you use the yad.

Hey, surprise! Thisyad I think lives on in the dutch slang word 'jat' = hand. In informal speech they say: Keep your 'jatten' off it! = hands off! It is verbed to 'jatten' = nick, steal.

http://www.google.com/search?q=yad&hl=en...sa=X&ei=CZGATp_

I'd like to read that book. John McWhorter writes of a notion that Germanic strong verbs, verbs that represent tense with an ablaut series, derive from interaction with some unnamed Semitic language.

John McWhorter writes of a notion that Germanic strong verbs, verbs that represent tense with an ablaut series, derive from interaction with some unnamed Semitic language.

He is a contrarian, ain't he? And where did the un-named Semitic language borrow it from? Germanic ablaut looks a lot like Indo-European ablaut in general, a lot of which happens through the language family. Where did Latin borrow it from? (cf. capio, cepi)?

But seriously, I think that the ablaut was phonological at first, and only later came to be re-analyzed as morphological (i.e., having to do with tense). It's the sort of thing that happens often enough cross-linguistically that it has a name: grammaticalization.

that would appear to be true

Thank you for the proof Goof!y

I believe McWhorter had a bunch of verbs that didn't have cognates in non-Germanic IE languages. They were all strong and matched Semitic roots. And my question about, e.g., capio, cepi would be whether those are examples of ablaut or umlaut. I don't know much of anything about proto-Latin to have any idea myself.

I believe McWhorter had a bunch of verbs that didn't have cognates in non-Germanic IE languages. They were all strong and matched Semitic roots.

So, that means that Proto-Germanic came into contact with a Semitic language. Which one? And how did all those other IE languages get ablaut which most historical linguists trace back to PIE?

Basically, umlaut is the changing of a vowel because in a subsequent syllable there is an i. Ablaut had to do with the variation in vowels (such as that in Germanic strong verbs) caused by some other phonological process, e.g., the shifting of tone or stress (depending on when it happened).

McWhorter also suggests that "do" insertion and progressive "-ing" are borrowings from Celtic.

McWhorter also suggests that "do" insertion and progressive "-ing" are borrowings from Celtic.

Yeah, and I have questioned that, too, but it has its champions here-abouts, too.

Do other IE languages use ablaut to indicate verb tense? As to which Semitic language McWhorter suggests loaned Germanic verb-tense ablaut I think he had some ideas but didn't get too deeply in to it in his Bastard Language, which is where I learned about this idea of his. He did suggest that there was evidence from some other discipline of a candidate. He has not responded to my Fb friend request.

Do other IE languages use ablaut to indicate verb tense?

It occurs in the verbal systems and has to do with tense, aspect, and changing of parts of speech-hood.

Semitic languages also tend not to have verbal tense, but use aspect instead. Just speculating that some unnamed and unknowable "Semitic" language had an effect on Proto-Germanic seems a bit silly to me. I've seen estimates that as much as one-third of the Germanic lexicon is non-Indo-European. The usual suspect for a sub-stratum language is "Old European" (Vennemann et al.), and another theory is that Germanic started as a pidgin, thence to Creole, and finally a language. The linguist, who came up with the term laryngeal, Hermann Möller also p[ublished a comparative dictionary of Semitic-PIE roots. It's probably up on Google Books at this point.

As for strong verbs: drive and bring seem to have PIE roots.

Since the Germanic ablaut is derived from PIE ablaut, yes. Latin and Sanskrit do (altho it's not called ablaut).

Latin and Sanskrit do (altho it's not called ablaut).

The native Indian grammatical terms for ablaut (link) are guṇa 'string, thread' and vṛddhi 'growth'.

Thanks for the link, nuncle. That explains it pretty well for this too-happy-to-jump-on-the-latest-whackadoodle-bandwagon soul.

while I don't believe there is a chart of regular gestures(even though some, e.g. dynamics indications, have a pretty similar look, regardless of the conductor), there are time signature patterns that are fairly standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conducting (although there's no mention of chironomy!)

Actually, Buff, the first sentence under History of Conducting mentions it, spelled cheironomy. I've only started to read the article, so I have no further comment at this point! Oh, yes, thanks for the link.

ah, I didn't read it carefully enough, and when I did a search, I spelled it without the e. good catch!!