No I'm getting that completely. But inflection in spoken language is redundant to a large degree with facial expression. If you're watching the original speaker, you're already getting that.
For example, if we ask a question, it's not just that our voice goes up at the end. Our eyes move in a certain way too, slightly more opened and our eyebrows and sometimes cheeks raise.
And you’re seeing this nuance while simultaneously reading subtitles? From a speaker at a distance? GP is correct, sign is a fully expressive language, far richer than subtitles.
Yes of course. Haven't you ever watched a movie without audio and with subtitles turned on? It's quite easy to get the nuance. People's faces are incredibly expressive.
And nobody's at a distance, the cameras are always on either a medium or close-up shot when filming politicians speaking.
This is a deeply strange line of thought to follow. Do you think broadcasters would go to the trouble and expense if there was no value for people in it?
If subtitles were equal value or even “good enough”, they’d be used exclusively. That they aren’t should tell you something, and you repeatedly protesting that you are unable to comprehend the value doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Not who you replied to, but weren't we talking about televised speech? (We're talking about adding subtitles.) So the "at distance" really isn't an issue. And yes I can watch subtitle and speaker's face at the same time and get their expression.
> But inflection in spoken language is redundant to a large degree with facial expression.
I don't know how you'd possibly attempt to objectively quantify that degree, but my guess is that you're understating it. The entire deaf community is probably not mistaken about which means of communication are the most effective for them.
