Sign language vs subtitles
 

On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:17:06 +0100
David Kennedy wrote:

Vice President of GM...

So, a bit strapped for cash then and unable to afford the best
teachers...


????

When his dad died, we went to his funeral, which was mostly
attended by the successful, and rich, deaf community of Michigan.
During the service, which was translated by a signing pastor, there
were signed conversations going on all around. It was surreal, like
watching a film of a crowd scene with no sound.

Have you ever had dealings with Social Services here in the UK?

No, thankfully. Do they converse in sign language too?

--
Davey.

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:14:26 +0100
Martin wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:50:44 +0100, Davey
wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:17:06 +0100
David Kennedy wrote:

Vice President of GM...

So, a bit strapped for cash then and unable to afford the best
teachers...


????

When his dad died, we went to his funeral, which was mostly
attended by the successful, and rich, deaf community of Michigan.
During the service, which was translated by a signing pastor,
there were signed conversations going on all around. It was
surreal, like watching a film of a crowd scene with no sound.

Have you ever had dealings with Social Services here in the UK?

No, thankfully. Do they converse in sign language too?

Which sign language, as seen on HIGNFY, did the Swedish entry to ESC
use?

The Very Pumped Up one! Most un-Swedish-like. I think he borrowed
something from Gangnam Style, and then developed it from there.

I don't often watch that programme, but I thought that Gary Linker did
a good job.

--
Davey.

Sign language vs subtitles
 

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 May 2015 23:41:20 +0100
David Kennedy wrote:

On 29/05/2015 22:06, NY wrote:

I'm gobsmacked by that last sentence. I'd have expected every deaf
person to learn a "spoken" language (except in their case it would
be only a written language). How else would they be able to
communicate in writing. If a deaf person knows sign language only,
they can only converse face-to-face with other deaf people (*), and
cannot communicate with hearing people (*) or with other deaf
people at a distance (for which writing English in an email or a
letter would be needed).

I'm gobsmacked that you're gobsmacked.

How easy do you think it would be to teach a "spoken" language to a
deaf person?



Change 'spoken' to 'written' and it's not such a problem, surely?

Yes I though it made it very clear what I mean when I said

I was using "spoken" because that's what was in the Wikipedia article,
presumably because it was referring to languages such as English, French and
German which are capable of being spoken, as opposed to BSL and ASL which
are not - they exist only in signed format. But I was qualifying it by
saying "except in their case it would be only a written language" to show
that I knew how daft it would be to try to each a deaf person to *speak* (as
opposed to *write*) English because learning to speak is done by imitation
of what you can hear.

Now we've cleared that one up, are you saying that it is preposterous to
teach a deaf person to *read* and *write* English, French, German etc, maybe
using sign language as a means of conveying the instructions in the same way
that spoken instructions would be used for teaching a hearing person to
read/write?

Sign language vs subtitles
 

David Kennedy writes:

How easy do you think it would be to teach a "spoken" language to a deaf person?

I do not know how easy it is, but it is possible. One of my lecturers at
university was deaf since birth and could both speak (albeit with a
very 'unnatural' intonation) and lip read.

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On Sat, 30 May 2015 16:47:15 +0100
"NY" wrote:

Now we've cleared that one up, are you saying that it is preposterous
to teach a deaf person to *read* and *write* English, French, German
etc, maybe using sign language as a means of conveying the
instructions in the same way that spoken instructions would be used
for teaching a hearing person to read/write?

I have no idea why you think that, it is not what I wrote at all. I
said that I thought it should be fairly easy to teach deaf people a
written language, being easier than a spoken one:
" How easy do you think it would be to teach a "spoken" language to a
deaf person?



Change 'spoken' to 'written' and it's not such a problem, surely?"

How you interpret it to mean what you say above, I have no idea.
I see no point in continuing this particular conversation.

--
Davey.

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:12:05 +0100, Clive Page wrote:

I recorded a programme on BBC4 recently and realised that the late-night
repeats come with a sign-language interpreter in front (while the ones
earlier in the evening do not). This meant the actual programme was
reduced to about three quarters of the screen with a somewhat
distracting presence on the right-hand side. Although my hearing is
good enough, I appreciate that those with hearing loss need assistance
so do not object to this if it helps them.

But I noticed that the programme had optional subtitles, and when I
tried them for a time they seemed to me to be entirely adequate. I
suspect there are now very few TVs that can't display these subtitles,
so I wondered why broadcasters feel the need to provide a sign-language
interpreter as well. I would also have thought that anyone with
eyesight good enough to follow the hand movements of the signer would
also be able to read the subtitles, and would get more information that
way and more rapidly (the signs sometimes went on for some time after
the speech had finished). So does anyone know why broadcasters still
persist with sign language when it does not more than duplicate the
subtitles?

This practice by the beeb of broadcasting signed repeats which start
after midnight is quite prevalent. For BBC Two anything that starts after
midnight is in the twi... sign zone and guaranteed to be so afflicted.

It's less clear cut with BBC4 but, in general, signing only afflicts
programmes starting around 2 am but this isn't always so consistent.

You'd think the beeb's own TV schedule web pages would give an accurate
indication but, ime, they're often arse about face in this regard, much
better to check on bleb.org to verify which showings are going to be
afflicted.

I tend to avoid recording the early evening showings on BBC4 to minimise
the end credit vandalism since the very late evening/early morning
repeats are much less vandalised (and sometimes even left totally
unmolested by ****inuity) so it's important to me to verify whether any
of the early morning repeats are going to suffer signing vandalism.

I do a similar thing with BBC3 programmes. The reason in this case being
the avoidance of dog **** embellished by the additional word "New" as
well as less end credit vandalism. I very rarely record any late night/
early morning content on BBC1 apart from the odd movie (in many cases,
repeats from previous years - I only record them in the hope that the
later repeat will be a less vandalised copy I can use to replace the
earlier recording).

--
Johnny B Good

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On Wed, 27 May 2015 19:53:09 +0100, David Kennedy wrote:

On 27/05/2015 16:29, Clive Page wrote:
On 27/05/2015 14:45, David Kennedy wrote:

It was originally for deaf/dumb people who didn't read.

I hadn't thought of that. But the subset of people who watch BBC4 and
are deaf and can't read must be rather small. I wonder if it's even
above zero.


It's not just BBC4 though [is it?] it pops up from time to time on BBC2
as well IIRC

On BBC2, it doesn't just 'pop up from time to time', it's guaranteed on
programmes which start on or just after midnight during the period
described by the continuity announcer as "The Sign Zone".

If you want to avoid wasting HDD space on your DVR, cluttering it up
with useless copies of SZ afflicted recordings, your most accurate source
of information in regard to a programme being SZ afflicted is bleb.org.
Don't bother trying to rely on the Beeb's own TV listings site since, ime,
this information is often totally misleading. To put not too fine a point
on it, it's usually totally arse about face.


--
Johnny B Good