richardd@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Richard Dallaway) (03/26/91)
Index Number: 14182
The other night I watched a film on TV called "Love in never silent."
It tells the story of a girl growing-up with her Deaf parents in 1920s
America.
The thing that bugged me about this film (and also "Children of a
lesser God") was the excessive use of something I've started to call
the "Lassie factor" (or syndrome).
Sometimes film makers find that their characters know something that
the audience doesn't. Typically this happens on the telephone, and
the character will echo back what they are told for the benefit of the
viewers. Sometimes this works and seems natural, but mostly it's
just too contrived. The funniest case I know is in Lassie films where
you get a dialogue like:
Lassie: Woof Woof.
Boy: What's that, Lassie? You want us to follow you...
True sign films shouldn't suffer from Lassie syndrome (please! A
better name!) Sign films should be subtitled, just like other foreign
movies are. Have you seen "Merry Christmas Mr Lawrance"? There was
an excellent use of subtitling. Although much of the film was in
English, when the Japanese spoke (amongst themselves) they spoke
Japanese. Great.
So it looks like the Lassie syndrome is fine for dogs and the Deaf.
I guess the message still hasn't sunk in: Sign is a genuine language.
Or have I got this wrong? Is there a very good reason why the Lassie
syndrome is rife in Sign films?
Richardljnnsp@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (LJ Nehring) (03/28/91)
Index Number: 14195 In article <18349@bunker.UUCP>, richardd@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Richard Dallaway) writes... >Index Number: 14182 > >The other night I watched a film on TV called "Love in never silent." >It tells the story of a girl growing-up with her Deaf parents in 1920s >America. > >The thing that bugged me about this film (and also "Children of a >lesser God") was the excessive use of something I've started to call >the "Lassie factor" (or syndrome). > [Remainder of quote deleted] > >So it looks like the Lassie syndrome is fine for dogs and the Deaf. >I guess the message still hasn't sunk in: Sign is a genuine language... > Richard, I agree with your observation, and I have also been quite annoyed by the film industry's treatment of the Deaf. Myself hearing, I have been very involved with deafness and deaf culture for the last three years. I think that the subtitling would be the best idea, but I think that the signs themselves must be shown in their entirety. _Children of a Lesser God_ was so difficult to bear because the signs were mostly hidden. The signing space is much larger than "talking space", and that has to be understood by the film makers who attempt to use it. A good friend and I have been throwing the idea around of an all ASL film, with English subtitles. We have been talking about different ways of signing (shadows, windows, mirrors, etc.) but we are a long way from a breakthrough. arf! arf! what's that Phydeaux? The boss is coming? woof! woof! okay girl, I'll hurry! if you, or anyone else, have ideas about filming ASL, or anything I would like to hear them. thanks C U later...
Ann.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Stalnaker) (04/05/91)
Index Number: 14627 [This is from the Silent Talk Conference] > To: richardd@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Richard Dallaway) > The thing that bugged me about this film (and also "Children > of a lesser God") was the excessive use of something I've > I've started to call the "Lassie factor" (or syndrome). Richard - these films were made knowing that the majority of us have telecaptioned decoders - however, I can't keep up with signing either! (grinning) I loved both of the above movies you are referring to and thought they were well done. Both had a point and were trying to educate the public. I abhor on-site signing on any TV show as I feel it is more distracting than open/closed captioning and besides, the majority cannot understand it (even many deaf folks don't sign). Don't take me wrong here - I'm not referring to actors/actresses signing, I'm referring to the upper box where there is an interpreter signing - come to think of it, I don't believe we are seeing much of that anymore unless you count the religious shows which I don't watch. -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!385!14.0!Ann.Stalnaker Internet: Ann.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org
richardd@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Richard Dallaway) (04/10/91)
Index Number: 14654 Ann.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Stalnaker) writes: > Richard - these films were made knowing that the majority of > us have telecaptioned decoders - however, I can't keep > up with signing either! (grinning) I loved both of the above > movies you are referring to and thought they were well done. > Both had a point and were trying to educate the public. Agreed. More Deaf movies the better. But maybe I didn't quite make myself clear. I wasn't thinking about the signing/subtitling in terms of allowing the Deaf to enjoy the movie. [That's another very important issue. Here in the UK subtitles for the Deaf are provided by a teletext service. They have a Subtitle Department which puts subtitles on. There were letters of complaint because they didn't put subtitles on "Love is never silent". And as for captioned Signing... well it just doesn't happen here!] Anyway, I was thinking about subtitles from a "Sign is a language" point of view (and from a hearing point of view, I might add). I was just trying to say that the Sign sequences in the film should have been subtitled rather than translated back (=the Lassie factor). It's the Lassie factor I don't like (subtitling the Lassie factor-ness would be just as bad). Think about it this way: Just imagine how (extra) tedious one of those old 1950s war films would be if the Lassie syndrome was rife: German: Ich warne Sie. Sollten Sie mit dem Gedanken spielen zu fliehen, schlangen Sie es sich lieber gleich aus dem Kopf. Die Eniziegn die es biher versucht haben, h\"angen dort hinter Ihnen im Stacheldraht. English: What's that? You shot Ben... Ridiculous! Replace the German with Sign, and that's the situation I'm annoyed about. Subtitle the German if you want, but the technique being used to communicate what the German is saying is just naff. [My solutiuon to the above situation would be to have both parties speaking German, with subtitles for people like me who don't understand German. There would be no need for the stupid unnatural comment from the English...the information would be in the subtitles.] Thanks for your comments. Keep them coming, Richard PS. Our news machine is playing-up. Please post replies directly to me to be sure I get them.
Jay.Croft@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Jay Croft) (04/11/91)
Index Number: 14726
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
I've been told that the religious shows that use interpreters in a box
or circle--the interpreters do not convey accurately the spoken word,
but say what they want the deaf people to know.
Ecccch!
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!147.0!Jay.Croft
Internet: Jay.Croft@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.orgAnn.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Stalnaker) (04/11/91)
Index Number: 14754 [This is from the Silent Talk Conference] > I've been told that the religious shows that use interpreters > in a box or circle--the interpreters do not convey accurately > the spoken word, but say what they want the deaf people > to know. > Ecccch! That's really the pits, Jay. As I stated in my previous message, I find the boxes or circles very distracting. I know even with closed captioning, they don't always transmit the words that are actually stated and I find this hard to deal with. I've caught it several times since I do read the lips of the speaker when possible. -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!385!14.0!Ann.Stalnaker Internet: Ann.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org
Jay.Croft@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Jay Croft) (04/11/91)
Index Number: 14761
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Me, too. If the captions are a bit ahead of the speaker, I like to see
what really was said.
CaptionAmerica pledges to give us the whole thing, not an edited
version. They caption TODAY show in the morning, and do a good job of
it. If I haven't opened the curtains yet and wonder what the weather is
like, I just see what Willard Scott is wearing! He broadcasts from
across town.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!147.0!Jay.Croft
Internet: Jay.Croft@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.orgAnn.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Stalnaker) (04/17/91)
Index Number: 15012 [This is from the Silent Talk Conference] > Me, too. If the captions are a bit ahead of the speaker, > I like to see what really was said. I don't see how that can be possible when it comes to live captioning, especially since not everything the speaker will say is prepared ahead of time. I'm always curious - guess you can blame that on the female gender. (grin) I want to know everything that is being said...No Ifs - No Ands - No Butts about it! -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!385!14.0!Ann.Stalnaker Internet: Ann.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org
Jay.Croft@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Jay Croft) (04/24/91)
Index Number: 15100
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
"Real-time captioning" is done while the show is actually on the air.
Pre-taped programs such as sitcoms are captioned ahead of time, and thus
the words can pop up before actually being spoken.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!147.0!Jay.Croft
Internet: Jay.Croft@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.orgFran.O'gorman@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.org (Fran O'gorman) (04/24/91)
Index Number: 15110
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
JC> CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD was filmed in such a way that it was
JC> impossible for deaf people to follow the story without subtitles.
JC> I was quite offended by what has been called "the Lassie factor."
You mean there was no subtitled version at all? I just assumed
there had been, there should have been for sure.
JC> it would have been preferable that the film be made with subtitles
JC> in all copies. That way, everyone seeing the film would have been
JC> on an equal footing.
Yeah, I was saying that the subtitles instead of the voicing could
make you miss the facial expressions but then never having
anything would be completely wrong and having it there for
everyone really wouldn't hurt either I suppose...it didn't hurt 'A
Man and a Woman' and I think that was in subtitles from the
French...the main thought I had was that if voice was used in the
right way it wouldn't have to be a Lassie-type thing... when I do
it with Mary it's only when needed to be sure that I'm
understanding her correctly and she kind of expects me to do it,
maybe because I've done it in the past, and I don't THINK she sees
that as deprecating...I'll ask her...
...I just did and she said (well signed) yes it was OK. I do it
when I need to verify that I got what she meant correctly... I
guess the fact that she does hear but is speech impaired is a
factor here.
--Fran
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!272!94!Fran.O'gorman
Internet: Fran.O'gorman@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.orgJack.O'keeffe@f26.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Jack O'keeffe) (04/24/91)
Index Number: 15111
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
FO> You mean there was no subtitled version at all? I just
FO> assumed there had been, there should have been for sure.
I very seldom go to theater movies, Fran, for the obvious reason
that I can't understand their audio. But I was so interested in
COALG that I made an exception in that case.
FO> ..the main thought I had was that if voice was used in the right
FO> way it wouldn't have to be a Lassie-type thing...
I didn't notice any "Lassie-type" thing, but since the sound track
was lost on me I could have missed it. I really was not able to
follow the story line all that well in the theater. But then later,
when it was released on videotape, closed captioned, I watched it
again. Several times in fact. I still did not notice any condensation
in the dialog as captioned, but maybe I'm not as sensitive as others.
I thought it was a great movie, and that Marlee richly deserved her
Oscar for it.
... Jack.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!26!Jack.O'keeffe
Internet: Jack.O'keeffe@f26.n129.z1.fidonet.orgFran.O'gorman@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.org (Fran O'gorman) (04/26/91)
Index Number: 15236
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Hi Jack,
JO> I didn't notice any "Lassie-type" thing, but since the sound track
JO> was lost on me I could have missed it.
Actually the way William Hurt did it, it was almost like he was
thinking out loud, kind of mentally registering it, and his
affection and esteem for her was so obvious, I really didn't think
he was treating her as at all inferior, but from what they were
saying (Richard, et al) was that it came across that way. I
realize that the tone of voice one's using could influence the
'feel' of what one is saying and when deaf that further input is
not available. As a hearing person I can only say that his tone
was, if anything, full of love and so much regard, it was not at
meant as belittling, at least that's how it struck me. In fact,
the fact that it could also double as a sign interpretation was
almost masked because of the way he was doing it. She, as a
person, was a puzzle to him, and he seemed to be musing out loud
over what bits and pieces of her inner self she was prepared to
reveal to him at different points in the movie.
JO> But then
JO> later, when it was released on videotape, closed captioned, I
JO> watched it again. Several times in fact.
So they did close caption it eventually, that's good. Too bad
they didn't from the start like when it was in the movies too, but
then I guess, they can't --that's subtitling then-- closed
captioning is only for TV sets I guess...
JO> I still did not notice
JO> any condensation in the dialog as captioned, but maybe I'm not as
JO> sensitive as others.
He was kind of echoing what she signed, almost with what I
would describe as an 'inner voice' sort of, kind of 'taking it in'
reflectively. That's how his tone came across, it was like he was
speaking to himself with the idea of mentally (and sometimes
emotionally) taking it in...
JO> I thought it was a great movie, and that
JO> Marlee richly deserved her Oscar for it.
Me too! Actually the story itself did addresses some of the
issues we've all been discussing in the echo, and I thought the
way it was phrased in the end, "perhaps there's a place in the
middle where we can 'meet'", or something like that (can't
remember the words) wherein there was a commonality, and the
differences didn't matter...
Anyway, I thought it was a great movie too, and am glad not
everyone found something disparaging in it, I'm sure it wasn't
intentional, if it was for some, also...if it opens an awareness
of the concerns and difficulties of deafness for the hearing, then
it accomplished something good too. So many have taken an
interest in learning sign as a result of that movie for one thing.
--Fran
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!272!94!Fran.O'gorman
Internet: Fran.O'gorman@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.orgJack.O'keeffe@f26.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Jack O'keeffe) (04/26/91)
Index Number: 15237
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
FO> Anyway, I thought it was a great movie too, and am glad not
FO> everyone found something disparaging in it, I'm sure it wasn't
FO> intentional, if it was for some, also...if it opens an awareness
FO> of the concerns and difficulties of deafness for the hearing,
FO> then it accomplished something good too. So many have taken an
FO> interest in learning sign as a result of that movie for one
FO> thing.
Unfortunately, Fran, there will always be those who make a habit of
finding offense where none is intended. They suffer from the Rodney
Dangerfield syndrome, they "don't get no respect". Sometimes I
feel we have more than our fair share of that among the Deaf.
Deafness is a huge problem for the hearing partner of a deaf person.
I'm blessed with who has the patience of a saint, but I know it is
very difficult for her at times.
... :-)
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!26!Jack.O'keeffe
Internet: Jack.O'keeffe@f26.n129.z1.fidonet.orgIO00053@MAINE.BITNET (Mari Robinson) (05/01/91)
Index Number: 15276
I am a bit confused. Lassie syndrome?
A friend of mine taught me how to "read" a little ASL, so I
could understand her and her friends when they talked in ASL.
She also read lips. I always say out loud what I am seeing
signed, to make sure I got it right (she would read my lips
to see if I was getting her drift *smile*). I sign very little
but reciting her signs out loud made it much easier to understand
her as I don't sign. As a hearie I find it just helps me to
communicate better. Love to all...
Mari
Another special note to all who have written to me about my last
post:
I haven't been able to reach some of you (mail bounces), but I want
you all to know that I really appreciate the help and enthusiasm.
I'm slowly working on getting my life back in order. It's hard,
but I want you all to know that you are helping a lot. Love you!
Maririchard@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Richard Dallaway) (05/03/91)
Index Number: 15279 Fran.O'gorman@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.org (Fran O'gorman) writes: > Actually the way William Hurt did it, it was almost like he was > thinking out loud, kind of mentally registering it, and his > affection and esteem for her was so obvious, I really didn't think > he was treating her as at all inferior, but from what they were > saying (Richard, et al) was that it came across that way. OK, for one film I might just buy Fran's "inner voice" interpretation of the Lassie factor, but not for other films (like "Love is never Silent", which was the film I was talking about. I haven't seen COALG for years). Anyway, what I guess I really want to know is this: is it common for a hearing person to echo back (talk) what a Deaf person has just signed to them? (As happens in films like LINS and COALG). It seems unlikely to me, and that's why I'm complaining about it. My theory is (see the previous messages) that film producers haven't quite grasped the fact that Sign is a foreign language---so they don't subtitle, but use a naff communication mechanism that I've been calling the Lassie factor. But maybe I'm wrong... Richard
Fran.O'gorman@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.org (Fran O'gorman) (05/03/91)
Index Number: 15328
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Hi Jack,
JO> Unfortunately, Fran, there will always be those who make a habit of
JO> finding offense where none is intended. They suffer from the
JO> Rodney Dangerfield syndrome, they "don't get no respect".
JO> Sometimes I feel we have more than our fair share of that among
JO> the Deaf.
My feeling is, too, Jack, that sometimes it is the person that has
been offended in the past that keeps reliving the offense, that is
to say they almost expect to be offended again, and this is such a
shame. That one person who did offend, way back then, did more
damage than they can imagine. Somewhere that chain or cycle has
to be broken, but it's sad because the walls are so hard to break
down when that happens.
JO> Deafness is a huge problem for the hearing partner of a deaf
JO> person. I'm blessed with who has the patience of a saint, but I
JO> know it is very difficult for her at times.
What is the saying, love makes all things possible... :-)
--Fran
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!272!94!Fran.O'gorman
Internet: Fran.O'gorman@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.orgAnn.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Stalnaker) (05/03/91)
Index Number: 15339 [This is from the Silent Talk Conference] > Perhaps William Hurt overdid it, but the little voice > interpretation was helpful (at times) and allowed for the > viewer to focus on the facial expressions whereas I do > find that subtitles can make the flow a little choppy (I > think) and hurt the overall dramatic effect. Hi Fran - I don't think William Hurt overdid interpreting the signs in the movie, however, I do feel it is a shame we don't have more theaters with captioning. I know of three such theaters who show new movies using captioning - one is in Los Angeles, one in Dallas and I was told there was one in DC. Of course, I've become mundane and tend to rent videos as they come out - just saw GHOST which I loved. I have noticed that several of the premium channels are closed captioning the old time classics which is really a thrill. Most of us may have seen the good oldies when we were younger but never knew what all was in the dialogue. William Hurt is one of my favorite actors and I thought his facial expressions in Children of a Lesser God were outstanding. Of course, at that time he and Marlee were an item...(grin) -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!385!14.0!Ann.Stalnaker Internet: Ann.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org
Ann.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Stalnaker) (05/03/91)
Index Number: 15341 [This is from the Silent Talk Conference] > I very seldom go to theater movies, Fran, for the obvious > reason that I can't understand their audio. I'm in the same boat, Jack - but I did make an exception with DANCES WITH WOLVES (an outstanding movie that even you would be able to follow since most of it is in subtitles due to the Indian language). My mother convinced me that I would miss the wonderful scenery of this movie on a 26 inch TV screen and mentioned the subtitles, I decided to take her advice and catch the matinee one afternoon. It's long but really deserving of the Oscar it won this year. -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!385!14.0!Ann.Stalnaker Internet: Ann.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org
Fran.O'gorman@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.org (Fran O'gorman) (05/14/91)
Index Number: 15586
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
RD> From: richard@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Richard Dallaway)
RD> Message-ID: <15279@handicap.news>
RD> Index Number: 15279
RD> Anyway, what I guess I really want to know is this: is it common
RD> for a hearing person to echo back (talk) what a Deaf person has
RD> just signed to them? (As happens in films like LINS and COALG).
RD> It seems unlikely to me, and that's why I'm complaining about it.
RD> My theory is (see the previous messages) that film producers
RD> haven't quite grasped the fact that Sign is a foreign
RD> language---so they don't subtitle, but use a naff communication
RD> mechanism that I've been calling the Lassie factor. But maybe I'm
RD> wrong...
Hello Richard,
I haven't seen Love is Never Silent, but if it's the one
based on a book I was reading about in the NY Times by a hearie
daughter of a deaf couple, which sounded like it had more to with
HER difficulties with their deafness than theirs' I had a negative
feeling about that one to begin with, so it's possible it was done
in poor taste, I really don't know. And I think your point was
well taken (on after thought) about the need for subtitles for any
of these movies when, as I found out here, that most deaf people
had to wait til COALG came out in video format in order to enjoy
the film and here it had to do with deafness! But the put-down
that the term 'lassie-factor' (while clever) implies, I think was
not intended--at least with COALG (don't know about the other
one). In fact to answer the question--do hearies echo a signer --
I would answer yes, when there's a 3rd person in the room who
doesn't know sign, if the conversation is among all 3, and in a
way the audience could've constituted the 3rd party, otherwise of
course, no. But captioning or subtitling would have accomplished
this and would certainly have been (and still is) the preferred
way to go...gee, I wish some of the moguls of Hollywood were
listening :-)
On a different topic, I see you're from UK and my understanding
was that the British used an entirely different (2 handed)
alphabet which (I imagined) would make most other signs quite
different from ASL as well. Do English people know ASL in
addition to the English system? I know that when Gallaudet
visited England signing was very much frowned upon and so he moved
on to France where ASL got its roots, so my assumption was that
ASL pre-dated other manual systems, but then the English one could
have existed and been in use, even though not officially accepted.
--Fran
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!272!94!Fran.O'gorman
Internet: Fran.O'gorman@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.orgAnn.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Stalnaker) (05/14/91)
Index Number: 15592 [This is from the Silent Talk Conference] > Anyway, what I guess I really want to know is this: is > it common for a hearing person to echo back (talk) what > a Deaf person has just signed to them? (As happens in > films like LINS and COALG). It seems unlikely to me, and > that's why I'm complaining about it. Richard, I don't know about echoing back being common but it should be done in all cases because not everyone knows how to read signs. Interpreters are being trained to use this and I've noticed that many deaf people who sign are doing likewise. I don't sign and need the translation when there is an interpreter available. I know that's got to be a tremendous job for interpreters to handle signing and oral interpretion at once but they seem to manage it quite well. Besides, I feel it's common courtesy to do so. I'll never forget the first time I used an oral interpreter who was used to signing - she had to sit on her hands when interpreting orally for me at a seminar. We had a lot of laughs over this. Another thing that can be quite fun, is having one interpret at a party where everyone is talking. There are several interpreters who are excellent at this. -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!385!14.0!Ann.Stalnaker Internet: Ann.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org
Verna.Forristal@f71.n343.z1.fidonet.org (Verna Forristal) (05/14/91)
Index Number: 15594
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
RD> Anyway, what I guess I really want to know is this: is it common for a
RD> hearing person to echo back (talk) what a Deaf person has just signed
RD> to them? (As happens in films like LINS and COALG). It seems unlikely
RD> to me, and that's why I'm complaining about it. My theory is (see the
RD> previous messages) that film producers haven't quite grasped the fact
RD> that Sign is a foreign language---so they don't subtitle, but use a
RD> naff communication mechanism that I've been calling the Lassie factor.
RD> But maybe I'm wrong...
When working with a combination of "hearies" and "deafies" I always speak what
is signed and sign what is spoken so that everyone can keep up with the
conversation. It carries over. When I learned to sign, I always spoke
because my teacher was very good at speech reading, and she could correct my
errors, both in what I signed and in what I thought that she signed. I still
do it, as it helps me follow what I'm doing, because I've been away from the
signing world for some time, and as a result, have lost the ability to "Think"
in sign language. Especially with ASL it is difficult for me, as I tend to
stick in all the extra SEE signs. I really need to get back around signers so
that I can start "thinking" signs again, instead of English. I can't speak
for anyone else, but personally, I speak both when signing and when being
signed.
Perhaps I'll find a signer with the patience of a saint who can toss down a
few while trying to help me become intelligible again.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!343!71!Verna.Forristal
Internet: Verna.Forristal@f71.n343.z1.fidonet.org