Spoken language does not only distinguish itself from written language but also from sign language. Sign language is a distinct means of communication making use of parts of the body or of artificial systems such as telegraphic codes, radio signals and flags. The one- and two-handed manual alphabets for finger spelling to the deaf belong to a field of communication where written language and sign language seem to overlap. In this section we will only consider the language of corporal signs which do not imitate a written script, while not making use of other things or means than one's own fingers, hands or other parts of the body. Marks or figures on one's body, such as tattoos, are also corporal signs in a way, but they require other things or means in order to fix or wear them on the body. The reason that such marks or figures need not be discussed here is that the body is not an essential part of their symbolism. Thus, somebody may have an indelible nanacatena tattooed on 'er skin, but the figure itself then represents the same thing as a nanacatena on fabric or paper. Such is not to say, of course, that the choice of medium would not matter. No other material medium is closer and more one's own than the body one possesses. But a nanacatena does not need a human body, whereas human sign language of the type in hand here does.

The symbolism of body signs must not be confused with the usually speciesist and sexist body symbolism of certain supernaturalists either. According to some of them the body or flesh would have to be conceived of as feminine (as opposed to the masculine mind), while at the same time being 'the Intermediary between the life of man and the Cosmos', or 'between mind and the Cosmos'. In order to foist their sevenfold --or sevenfault?-- symbolism onto the human body, orificial supernaturalists may claim to have five openings in their bodies besides their two eyes. (Perhaps they do, but then their bodies are different from those of veridicalist human beings.) Such illustrations demonstrate how body symbolists may seek a but too easy way of exhaling the spirit of physical exclusivism and supernaturalism. When it is for us the outward symmetry of the body which is, first and foremost, symbolic of neutrality, the meaning of this symmetry applies to both human and nonhuman bodies, to both male and female bodies, to both the left and the right sides, and so on and so forth. Hence, we must not only differentiate the symbolism of body signs and body symbolism, but also the forms of body symbolism which are supernaturalistic or exclusivistic and those which are neutralistic or otherwise compatible with the DNI.

People who use sign language to express their thoughts, feelings and intentions often do not realize that particular signs may have, or have had, different meanings in different parts of the world. And often they do not know either that the most significant roots in many signs are to be found in religious rites and ceremonies. Thus, it is religious people who were forced to bow the head, knees or whole body in humility, to stretch out the hands in a prayer for mercy and/or to discriminate earnestly between the left and the right hands. It was also the theodemonist directorate that introduced the ceremony of the ring at weddings. Originally such a ring used to symbolize the price which had to be paid to the partner-to-be's relatives (or rather to the relatives of 'the thing to be acquired'). Many religious signs have remained or been perpetuated in secular symbolism, at least the kind of secular symbolism willing to copy and incorporate any sign, however exclusivistic its original meaning or present interpretation.

As adherents of the DNI we cannot use signs of which the interpretation depends on exclusivist presuppositions or irrelevant distinctions. So we can admit no discrimination between the sinister hand and the dexter hand. For example, no adherent of the DNI shall ever take an oath when required to raise 'er left hand or 'er right hand exclusively (or an oath tainted with the verbalism of an incompatible ideology). An oath is not exclusivistic in this respect, however, if one is permitted to raise either the left or the right or, for that matter, both hands. And instead of lifting the sinister hand exclusively, or the dexter hand exclusively, one can also clasp one's hands together while taking an oath. (Altho one should then not shake the folded hands.)

As to corporal signs the neutralistic symbolism is in the first place attached to the balance and symmetry of the body. That is why an obligation to raise one's right hand when formally taking an oath is unneutralistic, in addition to being exclusivistic with respect to physical laterality. (Moreover, if having to end with the phrase so help me God in a state ceremony such an oath is blatantly religionistic and supernaturalistic.) That is also why clasping one's hands together (which is a traditional sign of swearing in one part of the world) is an acceptable symbol of solemnly taking an oath. (See figure S.4.1.2.1.)

Other traditional signs which keep the body balanced are a sign for friendship, one for greeting peacefully, and a sign for take it easy or please, be quiet. (See figure S.4.1.2.1 again.) While greeting one should not bow the head, unless the people involved all bow their heads to each other in the same way. Similarly, no-one ought to kiss someone else's hands or feet as part of a ceremony in which the other person is not expected to kiss one's own hands or feet. If the people involved in a ceremony all bow their heads, or kiss one another's hands or feet, this may symbolize an egalitarian respect for each other as persons.

Closed, outstretched hands may be a traditional sign of peaceful greeting for some people, they represent a prayer for mercy for other people. Yet, such a traditional interpretation of a body sign does not force us to follow suit, for the body sign in itself is pure and immaculate. At the most it might be a reason not to close the hands as a sign of peaceful greeting in mixed milieus. The signs for friendship and peaceful greeting are, of course, also suitable as good-day signs.

The above-mentioned symmetrical body signs are symbols with the same traditional meaning in one or more parts of the world. That they are acceptable as neutralistic symbols does not mean that asymmetrical body signs could not be employed by adherents of the DNI; it just depends on what they are supposed to stand for. A body sign representing something unneutral like happiness, unhappiness or nanaicity can be asymmetrical, but it is not allowed to manifest in its symbolism any form of laterality-based, sexual or other exclusivism. Thus, someone who is sad or glad to see someone else leave, may wave that person a farewell with one of 'er hands, so long as it does not have to be 'er right or, for that matter, left one. And the same applies to shaking someone else's hand. If a laterality-neutral way of shaking hands is not a very handy way of greeting in an environment where not everyone is right-, or not everyone left-handed, this is a good reason to dispense with such a handshake altogether. (Especially when according to the same tradition a man is expected to simultaneously kiss a woman, a woman another woman, whether they find each other attractive or not, whereas a man is not supposed to kiss another man.) This may, but need not, result in a greater physical distance between the people, or the men and women, involved. For those who like each other there are much more intimate, nonsexualist modes of greeting, even symmetrical ones, such as embracing each other, with or without kissing each other on the mouth or on the cheeks, and with or without a tap on the back or on the sides.