[misc.handicap] Commonwealth Games

Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Goltz) (02/02/90)

Index Number: 6566

Re your choir of signers, I would THINK that they better be scattered all 
over the stadium, don't you think?
  They COULD put one of them in the corner of the picture on a permanent 
basis. I would think that would be a very good idea.
  Wonder if you can get the Commonwealth Games on TV in the States...
  Pat

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!3!Pat.Goltz
Internet: Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org

Anthony.Casey@hnews.fidonet.org (Anthony Casey) (02/12/90)

Index Number: 6676

>Re your choir of signers, I would THINK that they better be scattered all 
>over the stadium, don't you think?

Well, I think the intention was visual appeal. Their uniform dress and
gestures would lose their impact were the signers dispersed. I'm sure most of
those in the stadium could have seen them. With binoculars, maybe.

>  They COULD put one of them in the corner of the picture on a permanent 
>basis. I would think that would be a very good idea.

He or she wouldn't have had a great deal to report, much of the time. After
all, opening ceremonies aren't the most verbal of events. They did, however,
put the text of the athletes' oath to the screen, as I recall. But, a signer
during Prince Edward's delivery of the Queen's message might have been nice.
Then again, if we are to consider sign language as that - a language - then
its practicioners must be considered an ethnic minority. Like America,
Australia has an incredible number of ethnic minorities. Of course, there are
many additional ones within the Commonwealth. To cater for them all in
similar ways would create busy television screens, to say the least! Or is
sign a language deserving of special treatment? Just posing a question, I
timidly add.

>  Wonder if you can get the Commonwealth Games on TV in the States...

>From what I've heard of American cable TV, I wouldn't be surprised. (grin)
Nude interview shows, indeed!

Anthony

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!Anthony.Casey
Internet: Anthony.Casey@hnews.fidonet.org

Jeff.Salzberg@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Jeff Salzberg) (02/12/90)

Index Number: 6688

 AC> Or is
 AC> sign a language deserving of special treatment?

Yes.  Let me climb on my soapbox here, a bit.  One of the major forces
(perhaps THE major force) that binds a nation together is common
Language (OK, Switzerland is an exception; there's always gotta be ONE).
It should be incumbent upon everyone to learn the dominant language of
the country in which they live, if this is at all possible.  With this
in mind, I would say that no, ethnic minorities should not
expect to have simultaneous translation.  Since it is unlikely that the
profoundly deaf will be able to learn to hear (although I still chuckle
over the term "vision teachers", as applied to people who educate blind
children), sign is, indeed, "deserving of special treatment".

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89!Jeff.Salzberg
Internet: Jeff.Salzberg@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org

Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Goltz) (02/13/90)

Index Number: 6748

Heh. I don't recall saying anything about nude interview shows! And I 
don't get cable. Not likely to in the foreseeable future. I don't exactly 
live in the Outback, but it will probably be years before they find it 
economically feasible to wire my neighborhood for cable. I am much more 
likely to get a satellite dish.
  Hmmm. You pose an interesting question. Is sign language deserving of 
special treatment? I would tend to look on the practical side of that 
question. It is customary for a country to have an official language. As 
such, it seems reasonable that all television broadcasts should have 
their narration in that language. I think the maximum number of official 
languages a country has is four. I could see such a nation broadcasting 
on two TV channels, and each channel handles two of the languages. Each 
channel trades off which is used for narration and which for captions for 
a given program. In some cases, that would not be necessary, because the 
languages are spoken in regions. This is true of Switzerland, for 
example. India is a country with a much bigger problem, but again, I 
think it's regional. If a country has an extensive cable system, the 
cable companies could provide dubbed versions of events like the 
Commonwealth Games.
  In most instances, it seems to make sense to require all ethnic 
minorities to be fluent in the official language of the country. Those 
who cannot understand enough usually get cut out, and I see no practical 
way to remedy this. Most people have the mental capacity to learn the 
official language of a country. I think that requiring this is not 
unreasonable in light of the fact that I had a profoundly retarded 
relative who was bilingual, and who learned English late in life.
  On the other hand, the deaf pose a special problem. You cannot lipread 
a narrator who is not on the screen. Nor can you lipread a person who is 
not turned to face you. It makes sense to me to put a signer in the 
corner of the screen. Even if we required all deaf schoolchildren to 
learn to lipread, it doesn't seem reasonable to cut them out in this 
situation. I think it is quite reasonable to put the signer in the corner 
of the screen. I would welcome her being there, because it would help me 
learn sign. Sign poses a special problem for me to learn, because I 
cannot learn it by the methods I usually use to learn a language. Having 
this opportunity would be most welcome. And I think that it would be good 
for society to accept the presence of a signer on a significant number of 
TV programs. The deaf have a peculiar problem inasmuch as their situation 
makes COMMUNICATION more difficult. Most physical problems people face do 
not pose a problem for communication. I think it is only just for the 
hearing world to make SOME effort to help out. It is no worse than 
providing wheelchair ramps, costwise, or other kinds of access. It seems 
reasonable. Not because I am trying to single out one group for special 
treatment, but because the problems of the deaf communicating with a 
hearing world are really a completely different set of problems from 
people communicating with others in a different spoken language than 
their mother tongue.
  Looks like this deserves some discussion here!
  Pat

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!3!Pat.Goltz
Internet: Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org