Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020 June 14

Language desk
< June 13	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 14

Sign language interpreter bouncing up and down in Governor Jay Inslee press conference video about CHAZ

Re: Sign language interpreter bouncing up and down in Governor Jay Inslee press conference video about CHAZ

I have a question about this video: [1]. Why on earth is that sign-language interpreter (on the left of the screen) bouncing around and "dancing" like that? It's quite jarring. It seems very unprofessional, distracting, and downright silly. Especially since he is working for a (supposedly) formal governor press conference. What on earth is going on? Am I missing something? Is this a "legitimate" way to sign? The Governor allows such? I'm somewhat baffled by this sight. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro. I don't think he is bouncing: I think the camera is. Apart from that his movement is perfectly normal in signing (which generally involves the face and whole body, not just the hands). --ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly the camera that is bouncing, which is why the bounce slowly reduces towards the end of the video. It's probably just a phone or laptop that the guy set up in haste on an unstable pile of books or something.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a sustained oscillation at a very steady rate of slightly more than once a second, with a very slowly diminishing amplitude. An unstable pile of books would oscillate more slowly and settle much more quickly. It seems more like the camera is placed on a very slightly curved platform that makes the set-up work like a rocking chair. Wobbling by about one-half of a degree, something you would not likely notice when looking at the camera, is enough to explain the visual effect. Moral: always use a tripod (also available in easily portable sizes).  --Lambiam 16:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

If it's the camera that's bouncing, why does the curtain behind the man appear completely motionless? --Theurgist (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

When vertical stripes bounce vertically ... —Tamfang (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I never even considered that it was the camera bouncing, and not the guy himself. But, I kept reviewing the video. It still seems to me that the guy is bouncing, not the camera. If it were the camera that was bouncing, wouldn't the "frame" constantly change? For example, in the video ... the top of the video always shows his head at a relatively stable amount of space (let's just say, a quarter inch) below the top of the frame. And the bottom of the video always shows his belt at a relatively stable amount of space (let's just say, a quarter inch) above the bottom of the frame. (Plus, some one said above that the curtains are not moving.) If it were the camera bouncing, wouldn't the top of his head keep appearing/disappearing out of frame (on the top)? And wouldn't his belt keep appearing/disappearing out of frame (on the bottom)? No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And the guy is also "bouncing around" from left-to-right (horizontally) ... isn't he? Not just up-and-down, vertically. Right? From what I see. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The vertical oscillation is extremely regular, with metronome-like precision, which is strongly indicative of a mechanical origin. The vertical displacement of the interpreter's body relative to the frame is consistent with a 1° oscillation of the camera angle. The much slower left-and-right movement, on the contrary, is irregular. I think it is a normal body movement that would not be distracting by itself. The background remains steady, which I guess means it has been added artificially.  --Lambiam 09:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you mean ... added artificially ... ? Aren't these types of press conferences delivered live? And not really produced / prepared / edited ahead of time? (I believe.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

He's saying that the interpreter is not really standing in front of a dark red curtain. The curtain has been added as a special effect (see Chroma key). --Viennese Waltz 15:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that's my point. Don't they tape / film the interpreter guy "live" ... as the Governor is speaking? At what point would "editing" occur ... before / during / after the press conference? Or do they tape the Governor talking ... no live interpreter there ... and add the interpreter component in, later? (Which would seem to defeat the purpose.) I guess I am asking ... if it's all done "live" -- as I presume -- when exactly would editing / special effects occur? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, the interpreter is in a separate frame, and signs continually, even when the Governor is not talking. At the live filming, there was just the Governor. It's like subtitles/dubbing which are added to a film later. It's always done this way - for example on late night BBC television repeats of programmes broadcast earlier it's advertised "with sign language" and the interpreter appears in the corner of the screen. 92.19.168.81 (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've seen plenty of these press conferences "live", where the interpreter is standing a few feet away from the official speaking. So -- in this case -- doesn't it somewhat defeat the purpose to "add in later" the sign interpreter guy? Also, if that resulting video is from post-editing ... with all the shakey moves and bouncing ... they could not have done a better job at (post-) editing? That would be the very definition of a film / tape that needs editing. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Many billion-dollar blockbusters are shaky, jumpy, dark, blurry, foggy and/or blue as hell. Sometimes it's because kids dig it, sometimes because editors are overworked, underpaid or out of time. Since kids assuredly do not dig Jay Inslee press conference videos about CHAZ, the poor bastard in charge of cinematography that day probably doesn't give two hoots, not like his name's in the credits. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the point of doing any post-editing ... if that is the result of the post-edits? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Deaf people likely prefer a jittery inset over nothing at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

My point is ... if you are going to edit the video ... isn't that the main thing that you would correct (i.e., "edit out")? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Digitally correcting real camera shaking in post is possible, but not exactly worth it for non-entertaining afternoon TV producers. Green screening and picture-in-picture is child's play, though (YouTube is full of it). That's the only "Washington magic" in effect here. There's a very good chance you're the only eagle-eyed legal beagle in the world who cares this much for so little. Have you tried writing a letter to the governor's office, demanding clarity? You're not exactly entitled to it, but during an election year, all politicians want to appear helpful and compassionate. Who knows, you might become pen pals with the Jay Inslee himself, wouldn't that be swell? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite the contrary ... not editing the video -- and leaving in the bounce -- indeed makes the video entertaining. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph A. Spadaro. The signer is bouncing up and down on his legs. Perhaps the bouncing is exacerbated by a shaking camera. I think it is likely that is a real and actual curtain behind the signer and that the signing is taking place simultaneously with the speaker. I think two different pieces of equipment are filming the two individuals. Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In this video with the same interpreter there is no rhythmic vertical oscillation.  --Lambiam 21:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The signer begins bouncing at about 36:20. Certainly 36:45. Bus stop (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the illuminating / interesting replies. They were all helpful. All in all, I am glad I ran across this video. I've never seen anything like it. I totally assumed that they guy himself was bouncing (not the camera) ... so I was baffled / flummoxed ... and entertained / amused. It made my day. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

These porridge

James Murray (lexicographer) was fussy about his porridge. When it was not made right, he would say "These porridge are waesh" or "These porridge are brose" (waesh and brose meaning watery and thick respectively). A quick search shows that this treatment of "porridge" as plural is common in Scottish dialects.

I know it's made up of individual oats all cooked together, but I'm wondering why they don't refer to "these oats" rather than "these porridge".

Also, would they consider this a countable noun: "I'd prefer fewer porridge" rather than "... less porridge"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The first response in this thread has an early example (1550) of "a few porridge" (meaning "a little porridge") from the OED. Deor (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The OED says of porridge "In early use, and in modern Scots and English regional use, frequently construed as plural". DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

And Chambers 20th Century Dictionary says "in Scotland often treated as a pl". DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hot or cold I'm worried about the taste after nine days in the pot :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

"Pease Porridge" refers to pease pudding and yes it's vile stuff, even before it's been left to mature. Alansplodge (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The term grits is plural, yet here I read: "Grits are thirsty, so use less grits and more water than you would if cooking rice." After all, you can't count the stuff and ask for "two hundred more grits, please". I'd expect the same uncountable less for the plural porridge.  --Lambiam 07:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You can't really count them, but "grits" suggests another plural term, "grains".[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Are we to believe that boiling water soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than on any place on the face of the earth?

— Vincent Gambini, My Cousin Vinny

--Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved