"charles" wrote in message
...

My point is simple: Who can read signing who *cannot* read subtitles?

I.e. this 'service' has been completely superseded by digital transmision.

Ergo all those handwaving ****s are, is an unnecessary and unwelcome
expense.

Particularly at the opera performance I went to a couple of years ago. If
you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.


In the first place, in answer to TNP's point, which is based solely
on ignorance* - sign language isn't a substitute for or a "translation"
of spoken language or dialogue. It's a completely independent account
of a situation as interpreted by one deaf person and communicated
to another in a language which may not even share the same structure
and vocabulary as spoken language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_l...oken_languages


Just as hearing people are afforded the opportunity to experience
their own language on both radio and tv broadcasts, so its only fair
that deaf people should have the opportunity to experience their own
language in broadcasts occasionally. If only in the small hours
of the morning when most "normal" people, at least might be expected
to be asleep.

Which isn't to say that its regrettable that this isn't a feature
which could be given a digital channel of its own 24/7 maybe to be
shared between the BBC and others; but that's a different question.

As to opera. Given the existence of critically acclaimed recordings of
performances of most popular operas at least, and the ready availability
nowadays of affordable players, speakers etc., one might equally ask
why anyone i.e with hearing would want to go to opera "performances"
at all. Presumably the reasons "they" choose" to do so, are exactly
the same reasons deaf people choose to do so as well.


michael adams

....