Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About AhuraMazda

  • Rank


  • First Name

Recent Profile Visitors

84 profile views
  1. AhuraMazda

    OK so no post but what about opinions?

    Many thanks, Katmalan. Your contribution is of assistance to me, but I will not have time until next week to respond fully. In the meantime, as stated in my earlier post, I am not against signing; it’s a v suitable method of 1:1 communication berween the deaf, and I’m all in favour of fingerspelling. I recently attended a court in which the Interpreters dominated proceedings: it seemed absurd: the participants were educated 20’s 30’s and familiar with emails, texting and social media; the whole process would have been far more efficient and the communications more accurate if the participants were given a keyboard. talk again
  2. AhuraMazda

    OK so no post but what about opinions?

    I probably need to clarify my comment about text communication between the deaf and non-deaf! In a 1:1 situation, the exchange of written notes was common in the past, and finger spelling was also used, being much easier for the non-deaf to learn than signing. In all situations, finger spelling and ‘modern’ forms of communication are available: email, sms, social media.
  3. AhuraMazda

    OK so no post but what about opinions?

    I have difficulty in understanding why BSL is required by non-deaf persons: BSL is the language best suited to deaf:deaf communication; unless one is very proficient, as are some non-deaf BSL users and all deaf persons due to early learning and continuous practice, then signing will be relatively slow, much slower than text. Until the 1950's in the UK , the dominant method of intra deaf communication was fingerspelling, and those who were proficient could communicate very fast by today's signing standards, as some users still do, and faster and more accurately than signing without spelling; signing was ancillary to fingerspelling, with perhaps 100 signs for terms (now the basis of what we call BSL) in every day use. With improved education standards post 1945 and with the late 20thc/early 21c wide-spread use of tv subtitles, email, sms texting, social media on the internet, and internet access to news and current affairs, English language comprehension and understanding in the deaf community expanded to a level equivalent to that in most of the hearing community. I appreciate that such views would be controversial on a site such as this, but I would be very interested in the thoughts of those who have an opinion on that subject.