Once this conformity mechanism (i.e. the association of the starting and ending points of the verb with the R-Loci of arguments) is established for a group of verbs, other verbs can also adopt this morphological mechanism and become concordant verbs. These verbs may share some, but not all, attributes of transfers. For example, communication verbs, such as telephone or fax, involve two human participants, as well as transmission verbs and also the act of communication. In some languages (e.g.B. ASL and ISL), these signs have become signs of correspondence. Similarly, legends such as TELL, ASK, ANSWER, TELL-A-STORY and ASL SAY-NO-TO have become identical. As LM&M pointed out, there are a lot of characteristics that correspond to verbs. I consider that the definition of the formal mechanism in a single language will make the semantic basis of the category more opaque and that the grammatical characteristics of the elements are more obvious.
We can now return to the typological conundrum posed above, namely why is the condensation of verbs in sign languages limited to transmission verbs? The key to this question is the form of verbs that designate transmission in manual-visual language. When representing a transmission event in gestures, the hands usually move from the signatory`s body to the outside, as if they were following the transfer of an entity from one owner (represented by the signatory`s body) to another person (the recipient). One end of the sign is on the body of the signatory and the other end is in space, away from the body. This “loose end” of verbs is essential: when a language acquires a systematic use of space for reference purposes, this “bulk end” is easier to reanalyz; It is reanalyzed as a morpheme that encodes the locus R associated with the object (receiver) argument. Once an endpoint has been the subject of such a new analysis, the other endpoint that approaches the signatory`s body can be reanalyzed in the same way as the encoding properties of the argument assigned to the signatory`s body, to the subject`s argument (Meir et al. . .