[quote Covidworries]@lobsternapkin
Not everyone has perfect english/can develop perfect Emglish so why allow them to learn any English?
Yet again people cherry picking part of the reasoning and using as justification for oppressing and dismising it rather than actually realising that those who use sign language daily may know a little more than those who dont.
Would a 1 yr old child uaing English understand culture of course not but do we still use English with them ? Yes we do we use the English Lamguage with them and pitch it at thwir level. So conversing in a buisness meeting about biscuits isnt going to be the same conversation as the one you have with a toddler but both will use English.
Show me a couse where someone can learn just English to use with babies and disabled?
Would we accept someone teaching and supporting our children learn English that has done at best 24 hrs of learning it and in many cases 6 hrs and far too often had no lessons at all.[/quote]
No, you are really missing the point. What I am saying is there is no such thing as "perfect English". That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how language works.
I was thinking in my comment of the many spoken languages that include some elements of English, without constituting the whole language. Hinglish, or Franglaise for example. None of these pass muster as "standard" versions of English, French, or Hindi, either in terms of vocabulary, grammar, or pronunciation. But you know what - that is ok. They are their own thing. They represent a new cultural reality that is not a degradation of anything.
They are natural outgrowth which is somewhat different of course, but there is an important principle which you don't show any sign of having understood. Elements from one language can be used in new ways, either natural outgrowths, or artificially put together, such as in symbolic logic or computer languages. None of these represent some sort of "degradation" as the French Academy might have us believe, they are simply new uses that are good if they fulfill a function. They don't have to embody or even include the culture of any of the the original sources.
Several people have mentioned to you that when they use signs in their context they are not meant to stand alone but are always used together with spoken language. That is, they represent a hybrid language in a similar way to something like Hinglish. That's not some kind of blow against English, nor against BSL. There are no English police to tell people they have to use our language in the "right" way, and you aren't the sign police, nor are BSL speakers. What matters is that people, in the context they are in, find something useful.