I assume there must be a reason why sign language is superior but I genuinely don’t know why.

    • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      But can subtitles accentuate the way sign language can?

      Spoken word is to text as sign language is to text is my understanding.

      I can emphasize a word with sign language that otherwise can’t when just put to a text.

        • DeadPand@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Im deaf and it’s real weird seeing you get downvoted for saying you can’t translate english to sign language verbatim, cause it’s true. Sign language is a lot more like broken english combined with body language, you don’t word for word translate english to sign, there’s too many words for starters, and lost in translation is a thing that exists.

            • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              So my take on this comes from having a hearing friend who grew up in a anti-cochlear implant / hearing restoration family (deaf parents, grandparents, her and her sister are the only immediate family with “normal” hearing) and their preference was definitely to drive ASL which probably informs my outsider take on the matter.

              • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Now, I’m not part of the deaf community in any real way (don’t know any deaf people, and only a few who know sign, but I used to know the alphabet), but im badly near-sighted. Like, I didn’t realize that everyone else could see individual leaves on trees instead of vague green blobs where the canopy was. And birds just disappeared into them. The first time I saw a Monet painting, and impressionist art in general, while I still appreciated the beauty my first thought was, “Ah, a painting of the world as seen by a near-sighted person.” That said, I’m very happy to wear glasses and see a truer representation of what the rest of the world sees rather than walking through life in an impressionistic world.

                So, for me, I can’t see why anyone would choose to perceive less of the world than they could. If I could further augment my senses in a convenient manner, I would. If my parents had had to choose between some surgery and me being isolated from so much of the world, I’d ask for the surgery if I could.

                • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  The TV show See does a pretty good job of covering the why for this.

                  My understanding is that part of it is a “we’re not broken, we’re full people” along with “this is our culture” and the restoration of hearing is an erasure or something? I struggle to understand it myself and as a parent I would gladly lose my vision too if it meant restoring any healthy functioning for my son. It’s weird to me/

                  That said, I’m an outsider so I am only judging not understanding entirely.

                  • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Yes, I get the culture aspect of it, I’ve seen and read a fair amount on the subject, but I just can’t see it as worth it. And as technology improves, it’s going to be even harder. As for the not broken, I disagree with that, too. It doesn’t make them less of people, just like not being able to walk or see doesn’t, but there are still many things the average person can do that they can’t, just like how I can’t legally drive without corrective lenses and would be pretty nervous if I had to.

    • kae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Translation isn’t a 1 to 1 process. Every language has difference, idioms, etc. My understanding is that sign language is no different.

      The translator makes choices to convey meaning, as well as the literal sense.

      • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Im not an expert, I asked my friend.

        She is hearing but has deaf parents and grew up with ASL.

        I should have said my statement was a regurgitation of someone else’s words, either way you’re also correct.

        I have no dog in this argument and my statement should be taken as a “this is what I understand” and an addition to the conversation not a “nah y’all wrong” statement

        • kae@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I think you may be confused as to who you’re responding to. I’m reading some outrage in your response that is directed towards others and their statements, nothing that I’ve written or believe.

          There’s no argument to be made. A (good) translator into another language with take into account the intent of the original language and translate it into a comparative version. That can mean changing stories, or idioms that no longer land in the new language.

          I’m not the person who made any claim about reading speeds, and I would disagree wholeheartedly with that baseless statement.