This is confusing. The article seems to state that the whole talk was in
Spanish, yet comments seem to hint that dubbing was used. I prefer to believe
the talk was in Spanish entirely and do not wonder that it was appreciated. It
is always a great compliment when you take that effort, though I believe English
with subtitles might be preferable to really bad Spanish. I think President
Nelson's Spanish was probably good Spanish or acceptably so.I
don't think it would work for a whole conference though. Good English with
good subtitles is better than bad Spanish and a majority of our GA's would
probably speak very poorly in any other language than English. Not everyone has
the gift of tongues; most don't seem to have. Maybe the Spanish speakers
could speak in their own tongue and have subtitles. Not my decision though.
>>I venture 90% of watchers are English speakers. I heard the dubbing
was unpleasant.As a bilingual speaker, I can say that dubbing is
always unpleasant. Hearing two languages spoken not quite in sync gives me a
headache. I've always thought that a better answer would be to let the
person speak in whatever language they prefer and then display subtitles in the
language of the viewer's choice.Of course, the talks would have
to be submitted a couple of weeks in advance and the speakers couldn't add
anything or ad lib because the subtitles wouldn't capture it.
BYU...They did this (or had people speak in their native language)
and it was a mess.I venture 90% of watchers are English speakers. I
heard the dubbing was unpleasant.
I look forward to the day when an entire session of General Conference is done
in the languages spoken by more than half the membership. This would show
real dedication by church leaders to the needs of those who do not speak
english. Imagine the goodwill it would bring it it was announced
that a special Friday night session - every April - was done entirely in
Spanish, Portuguese or any other languages. What a night.