The issue is the still-mooted myth that deaf people are bilingual when very few actually are, or, at best only bilingual on basics of speech. The other issue is a lack of actual technical signs, or, deaf people's ability to understand those. People deaf who demand access to videos containing technical data and difficult terminology will be au fait with that anyway. E.G. few of us would log in and watch a treatise on thermonuclear dynamics etc for obvious reasons. We would not expect it even 'dumbed down' to be more understandable as detail gets lost, and detail is the Achilles heel of deaf communications and language.
Finding another sign for a difficulty-spelt term would not make it any easier to follow you would need the academic background in the language text. The determined demands for 'ASL/BSL' type grammar etc is an issue in that academic output is not geared to that. The access the video provides is fine, but, do the same thing again describing some academic issue and then see the deaf audience fall off. The UK hasn't the technical signs to use, ATR did a recent blog where it was left to one deaf academic to invent his own, no way really to run a railroad.
I think Gallaudet talks the talk but is still learning to do the walk. I'm unimpressed with their attempts to make hearing loss or deafness an academic/cultural thing. If they want a real challenge I defy them to translate Paddy Ladd... The man who created a real and living person out of a fairy tale, he IS the Emporer without new clothing!
Translation: The emperor's new clothes, this expression is often used to describe a situation in which people are afraid to criticize something because everyone else seems to think it is good or important.
Not only did the Deaf fail to criticise the fact it wasn't even in their signed format, contained terminology none of them had ever heard of, they lauded it, simply because it was written by a deaf person (Brought up orally), they then (The USA, the UK ignored it), made a living out of trying to translate it, convinced it was or is something it really isn't.
Not only did the Deaf fail to criticise the fact it wasn't even in their signed format, contained terminology none of them had ever heard of, they lauded it, simply because it was written by a deaf person (Brought up orally), they then (The USA, the UK ignored it), made a living out of trying to translate it, convinced it was or is something it really isn't.
