The Amsterdam Manifest

[Greftegreff, Irene]

Providing SL interpretation in the language of the host country is the
default for European conferences, so there is nothing special about choosing
SLN. There is no complaint about that in the manifesto either. The complaint
is that there was no other kind of interpretation provided.

At other conferences in Europe the organizers have usually been able to pay
for interpreting to other sign languages as well, if only for one
interpreter. If the Amsterdam organizers were not able to do that, I can
understand that this would cause discontent ... particularly so if
participants were used to ASL interpretation (as at earlier TISLR
conferences).

Apart from that, I'm still hoping that someone could explain exactly what
happened at TISLR 2000.

Irene
(who has to do by guessing)

> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra:  victoria nyst [SMTP:victorianyst at HOTMAIL.COM]
> Sendt:        5. september 2000 13:19
> Til:  SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA
> Emne: Re: SV: The Amsterdam Manifest
>
> I think a great mistake of the organisation was making SLN the official SL
> of the TISLR conference, but only supplying SLN interpretations if Dutch
> Deaf were present. (That is at least how I I have understood the situation
> to be; otherwise I cannot understand why there were sessions with no SL
> interpretation at all.)
> Victoria Nyst
>