A Gaeltacht in Dublin?

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't see how. Irish is an official language of the state. Sure I could see some issues with say a Mandarin only till(which would be used more), even then I can't see any law being broken.

As long as the till can also be used by English-speakers & as long as the job requirements don't require any more command of Irish than is reasonably necessary for the position.

Would we tolerate a policy of reserving seats at the front of a bus for 'Irish Speakers Only'? I don't think so.

Deise go deo wrote:

the act of learning a language at an early age is beneficial in the development of a child,

Is the act of forcing a child to speak Irish, 'beneficial'? I'd say it has many negative consequences, as evidenced by the huge number of English speakers that this policy produces.

opti0nal wrote: »

You're being very charitable to them. It was one of the few tangible examples given by a proponent of granting 'Network Gaeltact' status to Clondalkin. A not well-thought out idea.

I'm not being charitable and I agree it's not a well-thought out idea - that's why I questioned if it could realistically be enforced. I doubt the 'architects' of this idea have worked this out either.

It's one thing teaching children a foreign language of their choice, such as French, and praising them for their efforts. It's another thing telling them they must learn Irish and that it's their true 'native' language.

To begin with, children are probably not going to be learning a foreign language of their choice; they're more likely going to be learning a foreign language of their parents choice.

Secondly, being forced to learn your true 'native' language is not simply limited to Irish. The parents of immigrant children frequently force their children to do this, for example.

So I would not object to children being 'forced' to learn, per say.

What I would object to is that it is a policy that has failed; that Irish is taught, as a compulsory subject, throughout the lifespan of primary and secondary school, constantly, for around a dozen years, that passing exams in it was essential to even passing your Leaving Certificate, or getting into an NUI college, that doing your exams in Irish would even gain you bonus marks, and so on - has not created a bilingual society.

Instead, it has created a society of at best Oirish* speakers and unfairly eroded good will towards the language in many who resent how a good portion of their education was essentially squandered with little to show for it.

Worse still, this system has created a culture of graft in a small cabal, that has absolutely no interest in the language in reality.

Wibbs wrote: »

Ancient Hebrew is similar I gather. Ancient Egyptian isn't that far out either. I tried having a go at the latter years ago. Makes reading Peig seem like a joyful exercise.

Seḏ em ef (forgive the creative spelling), and all that jazz, yeah. Not the easiest language to get into, especially due to the phonetic 'gaps' that we have to fill in and I found Gardiner isn't that much help, beyond some very basic expressions, as it wasn't really written as a language course textbook

ninja900 wrote: »

Nonetheless we do grant advantages to Gaeltacht areas in terms of public spending.
We grant advantages to Gaelscoils with bonus LC points, lower pupil/teacher ratio, and, let's face it, a less than all-inclusive enrolment, whatever the enrolment policy may say. How is that really any better, or more fair, than the situation in the US pre-Brown vs Board of Education ? It's using public moneys collected from all, but allocating them in an unequal way.

Governments use policy to incentivize or decentivize social behaviour all the time. People get tax breaks when married because we promote the traditional family as the basic unit of society. Certain industries receive grants and other fiscal incentives because we want to encourage their growth. Rich people are charged higher levels of tax and poor lower levels, so as to partially redistribute wealth and decrease the gap between rich and poor.

So there's nothing new or, in theory, particularly unusual by the incentives used to promote Irish.

However, when the incentives become de facto the end rather than the means is where you have a problem, because you no longer see a purpose to them meant for the common good, only the inequality they represent. In this regard, I'd agree that many of the policies that have been used to promote Irish have become ethically bankrupt; they simply have failed to make any declarable difference to the language and, as the article that kicked off this thread demonstrates, have become the end in themselves, with the language relegated to the role of an altruistic by-product at best.

So on one level I'd disagree with you; such incentives are not bad in themselves and can be very beneficial, however in the case of Irish they have essentially failed and because they now overshadow the language in terms of importance, are probably an obstacle to much-needed reform that could actually benefit the language.

I doubt very much that you, or others, would feel such resentment at such incentives and inequalities had they actually succeeded in making Ireland a bilingual society. However, I do think it perfectly natural that people do feel this way given their failure and perpetuation in the face of this failure.




* Oirish. Pseudo-Irish language; composed almost completely of English, with a few words or phrases in Irish - when actually spoken, which is practically never. Speakers in reality retain cúpla focal, which they will use occasionally in clichéd fashion (greetings, toasts, etc), but in reality cannot string together a complete sentence. Oirish speakers will self-assess themselves as having some Irish, or even be so bold as to suggest they have conversational Irish, but as they never actually use it, they never realize how little they actually have.

opti0nal wrote: »

This comparison is not valid as there is a difference between forcing children to learn a language that might have been spoken hundreds of years ago by some of their ancestors and teaching them a language still spoken by their parents and immediate relatives.

Just because a comparison is not identical does not invalidate it and there is enough commonality between them to merit comparison IMHO.

The major policy failure is that the needs of the Irish lobby have been placed ahead of the needs of the children.

Policy is not designed to service the needs of the children. Policy is designed to service the needs to the community, and in this regard the needs of the children can sometimes take second place.

This is not meant to defend the present system, only to point out that the principles you are putting forward do not always hold true.

Is Clondalkin's biggest need a Gaeltacht with an Irish language till?

I think it is clear from the article that Clondalkin's biggest need, or interest, is in the fiscal incentives that come with such window dressing.

junder wrote: »

"We are very encouraged that 5,000 more people are speaking Irish every day," he said.

What's the percentage increase in the general population of Ireland and what is the percentage increase in people claiming to speak Irish daily?

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Lack of reliable data on the language I believe only benefits those interested parties who have a stake in maintaining the status quo, rather than the Irish language.

+100%

Well, the population increased by 7.4% and the number of people claiming to speak Irish rose by 7.1%.

The leader of Conradh na Gaellge spins this slippage as '5,000 more people speak Irish every day.'

Nobody questioned our expensive, sacred cow's media management.