This thread is practically dripping with audism... Stick around, you will get it eventually.
1. Ok, so if you want to have a deaf person speech be compared to a hearing person speech,
who btw are a still a majority in the world,
what adjective and adverbs do you prefer to be used?
2. why would it be a considered right away "audism" simply to ask/theorize if
a deaf person
could speak like -okay- a hearing person, meaning without a deaf accent?
btw, don't you have to agree that just by saying "deaf accent"
(wasn't there just a thread about having deaf accent??)
you admit the deaf people does have a peculiar way of pronouncing words?
If you ask me, some things are being taken too far with the "audism" here.
I see nothing wrong or belittling to a deaf or HoH person about wondering
if it's possible for them to have a "normal' speech.
"normal' used for the lack of better adjective.
What I do see is some people got so overzealous with seeing "audism' everywhere,
their common sense went out the window... :roll:
3. The thread subject, again is the question whether or not it is possible for a deaf person ..... etc.
The discussion is therefore whether indeed
it is, or not.
Somebody at one point have asked "why would they want to?" - which has really nothing to do with the subject matter.
I replied - it is not the "why? ... to please the hearies??"
because what matters here is only
if they CAN or CAN NOT.
Then I added
BUT if they wished to (not 'have to', not 'to please anyone', just
if they WANTED TO for themselves)
then from practical POV - especially for a deaf person
it is better that the person who speak to him/ her has a clear speech.
because it is simply true- who do you understand better - a clear speaking
people or with unclear speech?
What if you, say, meet a deaf who doesn't know sign language and neither happen to have anything to write with?
Not everything is done for the hearies, people.
Fuzzy