This type of movement, e.g., walking, throwing, pushing, is therefore different for each person.
If the notator does not tell the reader that the manner of interpreting the symbols has changed, then the pedestrian movement looks danced.
All of this does not take into account that a dancer doing pedestrian movement will look different from a non dancer performing the same movement. The manner of performing the movement does not depend on the style of the choreography. If it does, then it can be defined more specifically in the glossary.
Symbology:
It is my understanding that the sign in Ex. a) below is a "state." It is similar to body part symbol, such as chest sign, etc, that stands alone. (Ex. b) It has no time value. It does not indicate an action until an action stroke is added. When an action stroke is added, then we read "return to normal" or "back to normal," as in Ex. c,d).
I propose that the sign in Ex. e) be used to let the reader know that the movement is natural or pedestrian.
It is often said that a new symbol looks too much like another symbol and therefore should not be considered for usage. I say that this should not be an issue if the logic is correct. For example, the hold sign (Ex. f) looks like a normal sign (Ex. a); The flexing signs for one degree and two degrees also look similar (Ex. g, h).
This brings up another problem for future generations. So many scores use the sign in Ex. a) without an action stroke to mean "return to normal" without being specific as to how long it takes or what movement is done to reach the normal the normal state. How will future readers know that if the sign in Ex. a) means "return to normal," then this is not a quick movement? (See Hutchinson, Labanotation, p. 244.)
To me it seems an error to write that the sign in Ex. a) means other than what it says. If the movement is quick, then write as in Ex. i). If the movement is not quick or important, then use the indication in Ex. j).
