Irish Language Commissioner resigns

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 31-12-2013 1:57pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Not at all, you can choose to speak whatever language you want, but forcing Irish people to speak English was a colonial project started a long time ago to anglicise this country, it is a project that the Irish state should not be trying to continue.

Whereas forcing Irish people to speak Irish is okay...?

if I have the capacity and the desire to to be a bloody good primary school teacher/guard/doctor* am I not being forced to speak Irish...?

*oddly no one has complained to a commissioner because the surgeon about to perfrom a life-saving operation for them didn't speak Irish. Curious.

An Coilean wrote: »

If that were true, then you would expect that those opposed to the provision of services in Irish would do so on the grounds of practicality and would ground their arguments in that concept, but I have yet to see anyone put forward a reasoned argument that providing services in Irish is dificult or impossible.

Emergency services. Mentioned it some time ago.

Indeed the event which sparked off this thread was the resignation of An Coimisinéir Teanga, who resigned not because the goals for which he was working were too dificult or indeed impossible to achieve, but because even the quite straightforward and virtually cost neutral steps that he had identified that could dramatically improve the provision of services in Irish were not being implemented.

Certainly the dificulty or otherwise of the thing is not the stumbeling block, its the political will to do it, whatever the motivation for not doing it, it does in the end represent a continuation of that same colonial policy of anglicasation.

It's the public will as well, in fairness.

Grudaire · 31-12-2013 2:11pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Whereas forcing Irish people to speak Irish is okay...?

if I have the capacity and the desire to to be a bloody good primary school teacher/guard/doctor* am I not being forced to speak Irish...?

But the OLA doesn't force any of this?!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 31-12-2013 2:24pm

Grudaire wrote: »

But the OLA doesn't force any of this?!

Splitting hairs, a bit. It's not fair to say "people are beign forced to speak English and it's wrong" but not "people are being force to speak Irish and it's wrong". Doesn't matter who's doing the forcing.

An Coilean · 31-12-2013 3:19pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

It interesting the way the extremists consider it 'Anglicisation' - evidence of the slave mentality imho, but the rest of the world more accurately calls it 'Americanisation'.

Ask anyone in Europe or Asia what Anglicisation is and they won't have a clue.
Ask them what Americanisation is, and there is a very high probability they will understand.

Resorting to name calling already?
Extremist indeed, i'm not the one questioning why its not ok to force Irish speakers to speak English in Ireland.

You would agree I presume that there was an official policy of anglicisation by the state here for quite a long time prior to the foundation of the Freestate?
The question is, if the state is still requiring Irish speakers to speak English, in what way is this different from the policy of anglicisation in the past, and how are its effects any different?

Chips Lovell · 31-12-2013 3:23pm

With all due respect, you can't have your cake and eat it, i.e. call English speakers colonialists and then take offence when the Irish language lobby is referred to as extremists. If you're going to use inflammatory language, you shouldn't be surprised when someone else adopts the same tactic.

An Coilean · 31-12-2013 3:56pm

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's not particularly difficult to have every Guard on the beat being able to speak Irish? Do you not think it's quite wasteful to have documents translated into Irish when there is no demand for them? Or impractical that road signs in Gaelic areas are all in Irish?

I don't believe I ever said that.
If practicality was the primary concern, there would be no need of strawman arguments against a fictional impracticality like needing 'every Guard on the beat being able to speak Irish'.

Practicality as an argument is a red herring, the biggest problem for the practicality argument is that when asscessed simply in terms of practicality, they just don't stand up. Take the Irish signs in the Gaeltacht, there is nothing impractical about it, they are already there, it would be more difficult and costly to remove them. Arguments based on supposed impracticality would read as far more consistant if the word impractical was replaced with undesirable. There is no reality to the idea that providing signs in Irish in the Gaeltacht is particularly dificult, but I would certainly accept that you find them to be undesirable.

The reality is that whatever makes Irish undesirable to those arguing against, it is not practicality. Practicality only comes into it when those arguing against the undesirable thing, ie Irish, think it will further the argument, and this is obvious because if it is shown that it would actually be quite easy and straightforward to have Irish, then the argument against simply moves off into other areas.

As for the translation of documents, I would agree that the current system of doing it is wastfull, but that is not the same as the objective of providing documents and signage in Irish being impractical. When it comes down to it, the argument against providing documents/signage etc etc in Irish does not come down to practicality, but again, that it is simply undesirable in the opinion of those arguing against. If practicality was the main concern, then the question of weather their provision can be practical and ways of making their provision more practical and less wastfull would be considered.
If you take bilingual signage as an example, it is no more dificult to get signage with English and Irish than it is to get it with English only, nor is it generally more expencive (the cost of signs is related to the sign itself, not the words on it) but those arguing aginst still consider it to be undesirable.

I know "colonial" is a loaded word, which makes it quite appealing to use, but the reality is that most Irish people are English-speaking. Unless you view someone who speaks English as automatically English, the colonial, "anglicisation" argument doesn't hold much water.

The word colonial is in reference to the policy of anglicisation as practiced by the British Empire in Ireland in the past. By continuing to require Irish speakers to speak English, the Irish state is in effect continuing on with the policy of anglicisation from our colonial past, and in my opinion, this should not happen.
It has nothing to do with considering English speakers in Ireland today to be English in nationality.

An Coilean · 31-12-2013 3:59pm

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

With all due respect, you can't have your cake and eat it, i.e. call English speakers colonialists and then take offence when the Irish language lobby is referred to as extremists. If you're going to use inflammatory language, you shouldn't be surprised when someone else adopts the same tactic.

I didnt, I said that by requiring Irish speakers to speak English, the Irish state is in effect continuing with a policy of anglisation from our coloinal past, and I went on to say that the state should not do this.

If you think its an extreme idea that the Irish state requiring Irish speakers to speak English since the foundation of the state is essentialy the same thing as the then British Empire requiring Irish speakers to speak English before the foundation of the Irish state, well then I'm sorry, but there it is.

MadPat · 31-12-2013 4:01pm

An Coilean wrote: »

In any event, it is still in effect a continuation of a colonial project to anglacise this country, and the Irish state should not be engaging in it.

Many things have changed since the golden age of Irish-spaking Ireland was invaded by those terrible non-Irish foreigners who did not spring up from our sacred soil.

Christianity, roads, cars, cellphones, electricity, running water, health care, our adoption of English as our common language, Starbucks, Tesco, Aldi, LiDL, laws, food safety, the end to those cattle raids in Cooley and the abandonment of the old Irish ways.

Indeed, all of these are part of a wicked colonial plan to destroy the Irish way of life. (not).

MadPat · 31-12-2013 4:05pm

An Coilean wrote: »

I didnt, I said that by requiring Irish speakers to speak English, the Irish state is in effect continuing with a policy of anglisation from our coloinal past, and I went on to say that the state should not do this.

Why is it a breach of rights when the ESB does not answer in Irish, and not a breach of rights when Airtricity does the same thing?

Surely an Irish speaker's needs are constant and don't change from one moment to another?

An Coilean · 31-12-2013 4:06pm

MadPat wrote: »

Many things have changed since the golden age of Irish-spaking Ireland was invaded by those terrible non-Irish foreigners who did not spring up from our sacred soil.

Christianity, roads, cars, cellphones, electricity, running water, health care, our adoption of English as our common language, Starbucks, Tesco, Aldi, LiDL, laws, food safety, the end to those cattle raids in Cooley and the abandonment of the old Irish ways.

Indeed, all of these are part of a wicked colonial plan to destroy the Irish way of life. (not).

English = Progressive, modern, civilised.
Irish = Backward, bad, uncivilised.

Gotcha.

Chips Lovell · 31-12-2013 4:07pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Take the Irish signs in the Gaeltacht, there is nothing impractical about it, they are already there, it would be more difficult and costly to remove them. Arguments based on supposed impracticality would read as far more consistant if the word impractical was replaced with undesirable. There is no reality to the idea that providing signs in Irish in the Gaeltacht is particularly dificult, but I would certainly accept that you find them to be undesirable.

Nothing impractical? You're having me on. The whole point of a sign is inform people of where they are/where they are going. If you don't understand the sign, it's not very useful now is it?

An Coilean · 31-12-2013 4:10pm

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Nothing impractical? You're having me on. The whole point of a sign is inform people of where they are/where they are going. If you don't understand the sign, it's not very useful now is it?

But again, thats not an argument of practicality, its an argument of desirability/usefullness.

Like I said, when its shown that it is not impracticable to provide something in Irish, the argument moves on to something else, in this case that providing it is undesirable or not usefull.
As such, the basis is not that it is impractical, but that those arguing against find Irish to be undesirable.

Dannyboy83 · 31-12-2013 4:15pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Resorting to name calling already?
Extremist indeed, i'm not the one questioning why its not ok to force Irish speakers to speak English in Ireland.

Name calling?
Wait - do you consider yourself a moderate then?

You would agree I presume that there was an official policy of anglicisation by the state here for quite a long time prior to the foundation of the Freestate?
The question is, if the state is still requiring Irish speakers to speak English, in what way is this different from the policy of Anglicisation in the past, and how are its effects any different?

Do you understand what Anglicisation means?

Anglicisation is the process of converting anything to more "English" norms

Can you demonstrate that there is a policy of Anglicisation in Ireland?
Are the Baltic and Scandanavian countries undergoing Anglicisation or Americanisation?

You are aware that the phenomenon of Americanisation, or as most young people write it, AmericaniZation, not exactly a recent phenomenon, also affects England?

You are aware that the phenomenon of GlobaliZation is inextricably linked with AmericaniZation?

Only people with an inferiority complex perceive 'AmericaniZation' as 'AngliciZation'

Honestly, your reasoning is that of someone who has time-travelled from 1922 to 2013.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 31-12-2013 4:18pm

An Coilean wrote: »

I don't believe I ever said that.
If practicality was the primary concern, there would be no need of strawman arguments against a fictional impracticality like needing 'every Guard on the beat being able to speak Irish'.

Language as a form of self-expression or language as a tool of communication?

As a form of communication, of course it's impractical. Practical - you speak the common tongue and get it done and over with. It's a tool, you know how to sue it to do the job, it's suitbale for the job, you use it.

As a form of self-expression, it could be seen to be practical - but there's a time and a place for self-expression, and carrying out official business with the police would not be one of them. You wouldn't insist on being able to express yourself by singing opera to express yourself to the police, so why insist on speaking Irish as a form of self expression?

Assuming both parties speak English, from the Guard's point of view, which do you think is more practical?

Practicality as an argument is a red herring, the biggest problem for the practicality argument is that when asscessed simply in terms of practicality, they just don't stand up. Take the Irish signs in the Gaeltacht, there is nothing impractical about it, they are already there, it would be more difficult and costly to remove them. Arguments based on supposed impracticality would read as far more consistant if the word impractical was replaced with undesirable. There is no reality to the idea that providing signs in Irish in the Gaeltacht is particularly dificult, but I would certainly accept that you find them to be undesirable.

The tool here is used to help strangers find their way around. The majority of strangers will speak one of the two official languages of the country - it makes pactical sense to have the roadsigns in that langauge.

As a form of expression, yes - Irish does work. As long as you'er not lost.

From the lost tourist's point of view, which do you think is more practical?

The reality is that whatever makes Irish undesirable to those arguing against, it is not practicality. Practicality only comes into it when those arguing against the undesirable thing, ie Irish, think it will further the argument, and this is obvious because if it is shown that it would actually be quite easy and straightforward to have Irish, then the argument against simply moves off into other areas.

As for the translation of documents, I would agree that the current system of doing it is wastfull, but that is not the same as the objective of providing documents and signage in Irish being impractical. When it comes down to it, the argument against providing documents/signage etc etc in Irish does not come down to practicality, but again, that it is simply undesirable in the opinion of those arguing against. If practicality was the main concern, then the question of weather their provision can be practical and ways of making their provision more practical and less wastfull would be considered.
If you take bilingual signage as an example, it is no more dificult to get signage with English and Irish than it is to get it with English only, nor is it generally more expencive (the cost of signs is related to the sign itself, not the words on it) but those arguing aginst still consider it to be undesirable.

No it isn't, as I've highlighted before. It's this idea that a langauge MUST be more than just a tool of communication that's the conern. And that attitude does and has led to the Irish Language being used used, perhaps unwillingly so, to create an impracticality where none was needed. THAT'S what pisses people off.

A language can be used as a form of self-espression, and there are times when is should be.

But there are also times when it doesn't have to be, and there are times when it most certainly should NOT be.

Chips Lovell · 31-12-2013 4:18pm

An Coilean wrote: »

But again, thats not an argument of practicality, its an argument of desirability/usefullness.

Like I said, when its shown that it is not impracticable to provide something in Irish, the argument moves on to something else, in this case that providing it is undesirable or not usefull.
As such, the basis is not that it is impractical, but that those arguing against find Irish to be undesirable.

Fine, if you want to use "useful" instead of "practical" in this instance, be my guest. The point stands, Irish-only signs are of limited usefulness. The whole purposes of a sign is provision of information. It's not there to make a political point.

What is particularly perverse in this instance is that many signs have been altered to block out the English. Time and money has been spent on making signs less useful.

An Coilean · 31-12-2013 4:31pm

View wrote: »

So, out of curiousity, what are your views on Ulster-Scots, recognised as one of our languages in the Belfast agreement which is explicitly referenced in our constitution?

Should the law mandate that people in, let's say, Kerry be able to conduct their business with the State in Ulster-Scots?

Should the State spend 1-2billion a year on teaching all and sundry Ulster-Scots and providing public broadcasting in it?

Should all our road signs be tri-lingual?

As you bring it up, this is what the Belfast agreement says:

All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland.

I have no problem with the above.
The main argument against Ulster-Scots is that it is a dialect of English rather than a language because so much of it seem to be just English with an accent with a few local words thrown in, much like you might find if you were to look at the strain of English spoken in west Kerry. But having a look through the Ulster-Scots Agency website where I got the quote above, they do make a rather good argument on language status.

As I said, i have no problem with respecting Ulster-Scots and considering it as part of the cultural welth of the island, but that does not mean that there is any need to facilitate its use in areas with which it has no historical connection.
For a comparrision, the Irish language is also mentioned in the same quote above with relation to NI, and the UK government has the same commitment to respect Irish as the ROI has to respect Ulster Scots, but that does not mean that I expect road signs in Irish in Kent.

Again looking at the Ulster Scots Agency website, it says that Ulster Scots is accociated with some eastern parts of Donegall, I would have no problem with the Irish state facilitating its use in the areas of the Republic such as the those parts of Donegall where it does have a historical connection, nor would I object to trilingual signs or Ulster Scots classes in these areas.

oscarBravo · 31-12-2013 4:35pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Take the Irish signs in the Gaeltacht, there is nothing impractical about it, they are already there, it would be more difficult and costly to remove them.

My problem with Gaeltacht signs, as I've pointed out before, is that they subscribe to the utterly ludicrous and reality-denying view that places in Gaeltacht areas don't have English language names. This leads to the farcical situation where a signpost in Ballinrobe - which isn't in a Gaeltacht area - points the way to An Fhairce, but not to Clonbur. If you don't happen to know the Irish name for Clonbur (or if you haven't been brainwashed into the alternative reality where Clonbur doesn't exist), clearly you have no need to go there.

As has already been pointed out, this is actively reducing the utility of a road sign. Worse still, in parts of Achill Island - a place where tourism is of the utmost importance - there are signs helpfully warning the French- and German-speaking tourists: "Aire, Ailtreacha Arda". Clearly the only people who actually need to be warned of the existence of high cliffs are the few locals who speak Irish. It's farcical.

MadPat · 31-12-2013 4:35pm

An Coilean wrote: »

English = Progressive, modern, civilised.
Irish = Backward, bad, uncivilised.

Gotcha.

Where do I use the words backward, bad or uncivilised? Nowhere. Re-read my post.

I am highlighting that among the many changes adopted by the Irish people, was the decision to use English.

Why is 'English-speaking' part of a 'colonial project' and other major changes are not?

An Coilean · 31-12-2013 4:41pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

As a form of communication, of course it's impractical.

Irish is impractical as a tool of communication if the service is not available in Irish. If the service were available in Irish, then for the Irish speaker, using Irish as the means of communication would be no more dificult than using English.

We seem to have found a wonderfully circular argument.

Irish is impractical as a tool of communication.
Why? Because the servce is not available in Irish.
Why should the service not be available in Irish?
Because Irish is not a practicable tool of communication.
Why is Irish not a practical tool of communication?
Because the service is not available in Irish.
Etc....
Etc....
Ad infinitum..................

It has a certain elegant simplicity to it dont you think?

Chips Lovell · 31-12-2013 4:43pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Worse still, in parts of Achill Island - a place where tourism is of the utmost importance - there are signs helpfully warning the French- and German-speaking tourists: "Aire, Ailtreacha Arda". Clearly the only people who actually need to be warned of the existence of high cliffs are the few locals who speak Irish. It's farcical.

Snap. It was a trip to Achill a couple of years ago that really illustrated to me how far down the rabbit hole we've gone. Direction/placename signs were utterly frustrating, but that sign at the cliffs just took the biscuit.

Chips Lovell · 31-12-2013 4:48pm

At the very least, the OLA should be tweaked to reintroduce parity between Irish and English. Either have bilingual signs everywhere or English signs in English-speaking areas and Irish signs in Irish-speaking areas.

It would also be far more equitable if those outside of Gaeltacht areas who insist on dealing with the state through Irish were asked to bear the additional cost of provision of that service.

An Coilean · 31-12-2013 4:55pm

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It would also be far more equitable if those outside of Gaeltacht areas who insist on dealing with the state through Irish were asked to bear the additional cost of provision of that service.

Should those Irish speakers outside of Gaeltacht areas also be refunded the cost to them of the English language services that they are not availing of?

MadPat · 31-12-2013 5:04pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Irish is impractical as a tool of communication if the service is not available in Irish. If the service were available in Irish, then for the Irish speaker, using Irish as the means of communication would be no more dificult than using English..

Irish is not a practical tool of communication because most Irish people do not speak Irish and have absolutely no intention of ever doing so.

Forcing people or public bodies to learn or speak Irish is an open admission that Irish is so unpopular and unwanted as a lingua franca that the only way to promote it is by force.

This is not about rights, it is about pandering to the vanity of self-indulgent 'victims' of a 'colonial project' who want to state to pay people to speak Irish to them when others won't.

Chips Lovell · 31-12-2013 5:12pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Should those Irish speakers outside of Gaeltacht areas also be refunded the cost to them of the English language services that they are not availing of?

Sure. Although I'm unsure how many official documents are written in Irish and then translated into English for the benefit of English speakers for example. Or how many state officials speak Irish only and need an English translator in order to communicate with English speakers.

An Coilean · 31-12-2013 5:15pm

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Sure. Although I'm unsure how many official documents are written in Irish and then translated into English for the benefit of English speakers for example. Or how many state officials speak Irish only and need an English translator in order to communicate with English speakers.

Money is spent on producing the English version of the documents, why should Irish speakers have to pay for both the production of the English version, and the production of the Irish version? Or are you suggesting that no money is spent on the English version?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 31-12-2013 5:32pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Irish is impractical as a tool of communication if the service is not available in Irish. If the service were available in Irish, then for the Irish speaker, using Irish as the means of communication would be no more dificult than using English.

We seem to have found a wonderfully circular argument.

Irish is impractical as a tool of communication.
Why? Because the servce is not available in Irish.

Why should the service not be available in Irish?
Because Irish is not a practicable tool of communication.

Why is Irish not a practical tool of communication?
Because the service is not available in Irish.

Etc....
Etc....
Ad infinitum..................

It has a certain elegant simplicity to it dont you think?

It would, if there was no common means of communication. Consequently, your questions both have the same answer:

Why is Irish not a practical tool of communication?
Because the service is not available in Irish.
No - Because it is not universally spoken.

Why should the service not be available in Irish?
Because Irish is not a practicable tool of communication.
No - Because it is not universally spoken.

And the argument takes the form of a straight line again.

An Coilean · 31-12-2013 6:13pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It would, if there was no common means of communication. Remember, we're talkign strictly pracical here so the correct answers to your questions are:

Why should the service not be available in Irish?
Because Irish is not a practicable tool of communication.
No - Because it is not univerally required

Why is Irish not a practical tool of communication?
Because the service is not available in Irish.
No - Because it is not universally spoken.

And the argument takes the form of a straight line again.

Right, there are two points here:
Firstly you are claiming that services in Irish should not be provided because they are not 'universally required'.

You are suggesting that being 'Universally Required' is a necessary criteria for a service to be provided. This suggestion strikes me as being nonsensical.

Both in general and in the specific case of choosing what language to provide a service in, this concept does not stand up.

It should be obvious that there are plenty of services that are provided that are not 'Unversally Required', indeed I would say that there are not many services that could be described as being Universally Required.

In the specific case of choosing what language to provide a service in, the concept again makes no sense. It is not universally required that services be provided in English. There are hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland that could avail of services in a different language if they were available. No universal requirement for English. The suggestion that the lack of 'universal requirement' is grounds to not provide a service is obviously nonsense.

Next you suggest that Irish is not a practical means of communication because it is not 'Universally Spoken'.

Again, this concept can easily be shown to be a logical falicy. If it were true that to be a practical means of communication, a language would need to be Universally Spoken, then we would be forced to admit that no language can be considered a practical means of communication because no language is Universally Spoken.
It is still an obvious falicy if you constrict your view to 'Universally Spoken by the population of a country' because there are clearly many countries in the world where there is no single language that is Universally Spoken, it is hardily the case that such countries are bereft of a practical means of communication?

It seems that the idea that you are trying to get at is that it is impractical to speak Irish if both parties can also speak English.
This of course is nonsence. It is a point that you seem to have dificulty with, but the fact is that Irish speakers, and anyone that has two languages, can communicate in more than one language.
My having Irish does not make it any more dificult for me to communicate in English, having English does not prevent me from being able to communicate in Irish.
When you have two people who have both Irish and English, the can practically communicate with each other in both Irish and English.

The simple fact of the matter is that if a service is provided in Irish and English, it is no more practical for me to avail of that service in English, than it is for me to avail of that service in Irish. It being available in Irish means I can avail of it through Irish and use Irish as the tool of communication in availing of it, my ability to speak English does not impact that.

The only thing that makes Irish impractical as a means of communication with regards service provision, is the lack of services provided in Irish.

Suggesting that sevices should not be provided in Irish because Irish is an impractical means of communication is a falicy.

_Kaiser_ · 31-12-2013 6:52pm

You're clearly wasting your time folks - to the Irish "enthusiast", the rest of us are just perpetuating the "cycle of English oppression", "less Irish" then they are, and ergo "just wrong".

This view however has nothing to do with the reality in 2013's/2014's Ireland but any attempt to demonstrate this will be met by the same antiquated arguments and circular logic so ably offered above.

I'm out.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 31-12-2013 6:56pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Right, there are two points here:
Firstly you are claiming that services in Irish should not be provided because they are not 'universally required'.

You are suggesting that being 'Universally Required' is a necessary criteria for a service to be provided. This suggestion strikes me as being nonsensical.

Both in general and in the specific case of choosing what language to provide a service in, this concept does not stand up.

It should be obvious that there are plenty of services that are provided that are not 'Unversally Required', indeed I would say that there are not many services that could be described as being Universally Required.

In the specific case of choosing what language to provide a service in, the concept again makes no sense. It is not universally required that services be provided in English. There are hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland that could avail of services in a different language if they were available. No universal requirement for English. The suggestion that the lack of 'universal requirement' is grounds to not provide a service is obviously nonsense.

Next you suggest that Irish is not a practical means of communication because it is not 'Universally Spoken'.

Again, this concept can easily be shown to be a logical falicy. If it were true that to be a practical means of communication, a language would need to be Universally Spoken, then we would be forced to admit that no language can be considered a practical means of communication because no language is Universally Spoken.
It is still an obvious falicy if you constrict your view to 'Universally Spoken by the population of a country' because there are clearly many countries in the world where there is no single language that is Universally Spoken, it is hardily the case that such countries are bereft of a practical means of communication?

It seems that the idea that you are trying to get at is that it is impractical to speak Irish if both parties can also speak English.
This of course is nonsence. It is a point that you seem to have dificulty with, but the fact is that Irish speakers, and anyone that has two languages, can communicate in more than one language.
My having Irish does not make it any more dificult for me to communicate in English, having English does not prevent me from being able to communicate in Irish.
When you have two people who have both Irish and English, the can practically communicate with each other in both Irish and English.

The simple fact of the matter is that if a service is provided in Irish and English, it is no more practical for me to avail of that service in English, than it is for me to avail of that service in Irish. It being available in Irish means I can avail of it through Irish and use Irish as the tool of communication in availing of it, my ability to speak English does not impact that.

The only thing that makes Irish impractical as a means of communication with regards service provision, is the lack of services provided in Irish.

Suggesting that sevices should not be provided in Irish because Irish is an impractical means of communication is a falicy.

Way to misquote what I said. I was merely answering your questions, not exprssing a view point. I'm happy with services in both langauges where it's practical, but that's it. And I;ve givne examples of where it's unpractical (emergency services, police, doctors, in case it needs repeating)

Fact of the matter is that if a service that is universally available in a langauge universally spoken (or as close as you're going to get, let's be honest, there's no poitn in splitting hairs here) exists, it is not going to be nessecary to make it available in a second langauge. Strictly sticking to a practical point of view, of course.

To say that the only reason the service exists in both lanagues is to make a langauge practical is both incorrect and creats a problem where there is none. "Practical" would be where there is a nessecity for both languages. Eg - a high proportion of people that do not have a common tongue. This is simply not the case in Ireland. In Ireland, there is only a "demand". And there is a difference between a nessecity and a demand.

Grudaire · 31-12-2013 7:01pm

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You're clearly wasting your time folks - to the Irish "enthusiast", the rest of us are just perpetuating the "cycle of English oppression", "less Irish" then they are, and ergo "just wrong".

This view however has nothing to do with the reality in 2013's/2014's Ireland but any attempt to demonstrate this will be met by the same antiquated arguments and circular logic so ably offered above.

I'm out.

I'm not sure you were 'in' for the last while anyway..

I like how it is acceptable to claim that all pro Irish language arguments centre around anti British oppression arguments despite the lengthy posts to the contrary.

Dannyboy83 · 31-12-2013 7:18pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And there is a difference between a necessity and a demand.

Not to the dogmatic there ain't!

That's why they don't send the Cathal Brughas to negotiate the treaties!

goose2005 · 31-12-2013 10:54pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

My problem with Gaeltacht signs, as I've pointed out before, is that they subscribe to the utterly ludicrous and reality-denying view that places in Gaeltacht areas don't have English language names. This leads to the farcical situation where a signpost in Ballinrobe - which isn't in a Gaeltacht area - points the way to An Fhairce, but not to Clonbur. If you don't happen to know the Irish name for Clonbur (or if you haven't been brainwashed into the alternative reality where Clonbur doesn't exist), clearly you have no need to go there.

As has already been pointed out, this is actively reducing the utility of a road sign. Worse still, in parts of Achill Island - a place where tourism is of the utmost importance - there are signs helpfully warning the French- and German-speaking tourists: "Aire, Ailtreacha Arda". Clearly the only people who actually need to be warned of the existence of high cliffs are the few locals who speak Irish. It's farcical.

Even the Saudis had the sense to put English on some signs:

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

At the very least, the OLA should be tweaked to reintroduce parity between Irish and English. Either have bilingual signs everywhere or English signs in English-speaking areas and Irish signs in Irish-speaking areas.

It would also be far more equitable if those outside of Gaeltacht areas who insist on dealing with the state through Irish were asked to bear the additional cost of provision of that service.

You'd also have to change the constitution, which would bring the whole Maifía na Gaeilge out of the woodwork. If you thought abortion referendums could get crazy...

Iwasfrozen · 31-12-2013 11:12pm

goose2005 wrote: »

You'd also have to change the constitution, which would bring the whole Maifía na Gaeilge out of the woodwork. If you thought abortion referendums could get crazy...

Why would you need to change the constitution to change the OLA?

Godge · 01-01-2014 2:18am

An Coilean wrote: »

Money is spent on producing the English version of the documents, why should Irish speakers have to pay for both the production of the English version, and the production of the Irish version? Or are you suggesting that no money is spent on the English version?

how about we do a test. If a document is read/purchased/requested in Irish over three years but not to the same extent in English, then the cost of printing in Irish should be subsidised by those wanting it in English and vice versa. Then, if Irish really is the language of everyday use, English leaders will have to pay more. Let the market decide.

Godge · 01-01-2014 2:25am

An Coilean wrote: »

Irish is impractical as a tool of communication if the service is not available in Irish. If the service were available in Irish, then for the Irish speaker, using Irish as the means of communication would be no more dificult than using English.

We seem to have found a wonderfully circular argument.

Irish is impractical as a tool of communication.
Why? Because the servce is not available in Irish.
Why should the service not be available in Irish?
Because Irish is not a practicable tool of communication.
Why is Irish not a practical tool of communication?
Because the service is not available in Irish.
Etc....
Etc....
Ad infinitum..................

It has a certain elegant simplicity to it dont you think?

The circular argument is easily interrupted by the Irish is impractical as a tool of communication becauae si few people speak it as their only means of communication.

End of discussion.

MadPat · 01-01-2014 7:31am

An Coilean wrote: »

The only thing that makes Irish impractical as a means of communication with regards service provision, is the lack of services provided in Irish.

The reason Irish is not available in services is because the people who deliver these services don't speak Irish and will not willingly learn it or practice it.

You can only solve this practical problem by compelling them to speak Irish or by firing them and replacing them with Irish speakers.

The commissioner found he did not have support for these solutions.

Grudaire · 01-01-2014 10:58am

MadPat wrote: »

You can only solve this practical problem by compelling them to speak Irish or by firing them and replacing them with Irish speakers

Citation needed?

Or has it become fully acceptable for facts to be made up to sit the argument?

MadPat · 01-01-2014 11:31am

Grudaire wrote: »

Citation needed?Or has it become fully acceptable for facts to be made up to sit the argument?

You confuse facts with reasoning.

It is reasonable to say that the absence of services in Irish is because the people who provide the services don't speak Irish.

It is also reasonable to say that despite decades of forced Irish language teaching and subsidies for those who wish to learn Irish, the largescale lack of Irish speakers is due to a general reluctance to learn that language.

Grudaire · 01-01-2014 11:45am

MadPat wrote: »

It is reasonable to say that the absence of services in Irish is because the people who provide the services don't speak Irish.

Plenty of public servants have Irish. But there is a lack of systems to make services available in Irish.

Why make an argument based on 'reasonable statements' when facts are available?

MadPat · 01-01-2014 12:29pm

Grudaire wrote: »

Plenty of public servants have Irish. But there is a lack of systems to make services available in Irish.

Why make an argument based on 'reasonable statements' when facts are available?

Now, you must produce facts to back up what you say.

How many is 'plenty'? Are they in customer service roles? Are they in the relevant departments? Do they have sufficient fluency for the subject matter? What 'systems' are missing?

Grudaire · 01-01-2014 12:38pm

MadPat wrote: »

Now, you must produce facts to back up what you say.

How many is 'plenty'? Are they in customer service roles? Are they in the relevant departments? Do they have sufficient fluency for the subject matter? What 'systems' are missing?

Oh FFS Pat..

You made a statement which I disputed, but somehow I am the one who needs to back up the statement.

Do you not see any irony in your argument this time?

MadPat · 01-01-2014 12:57pm

Grudaire wrote: »

Oh FFS Pat..

You made a statement which I disputed, but somehow I am the one who needs to back up the statement.

Do you not see any irony in your argument this time?

So, you cannot back up you statements either with facts or reasoning?

One fact is obvious: Irish is not widely spoken in Ireland.

An Coilean · 01-01-2014 1:00pm

MadPat wrote: »

One fact is obvious: Irish is not widely spoken in Ireland.

That is true, but there is no doubt but that the state is falling far short of what could be done to practically to increase service provision in Irish.

Grudaire · 01-01-2014 1:19pm

MadPat wrote: »

So, you cannot back up you statements either with facts or reasoning?

One fact is obvious: Irish is not widely spoken in Ireland.

Well I know several civil servants with a good command of the Irish language. In fact I know more with Irish than without.

But that is not enough to actually constitute a fact - but probably enough for 'reasoning' :rolleyes:
I can't find figures for Civil Servants online, although according to this 74.1% of Gardaí can speak Irish (in 2006).

MadPat · 01-01-2014 1:28pm

Grudaire wrote: »

Well I know several civil servants with a good command of the Irish language. In fact I know more with Irish than without.

But that is not enough to actually constitute a fact - but probably enough for 'reasoning' :rolleyes:
I can't find figures for Civil Servants online, although according to this 74.1% of Gardaí can speak Irish (in 2006).

Can any of these civil servants do brain surgery?

Grudaire · 01-01-2014 1:31pm

MadPat wrote: »

Can any of these civil servants do brain surgery?

Ironically I know several doctors with Irish as well

Don't forget that previously that 600 points was a prerequisite for Medicine. Many would have done very well in Irish.

But this is nonsense arguments.

MadPat · 01-01-2014 1:43pm

Grudaire wrote: »

Ironically I know several doctors with Irish as well
Don't forget that previously that 600 points was a prerequisite for Medicine. Many would have done very well in Irish.
But this is nonsense arguments.

You rely on anecdotes. Do the math, with so few fluent Irish speakers, it would be difficult to ensure one was avaliable for all situations. Quite impractical, and not essential.

Grudaire · 01-01-2014 1:45pm

MadPat wrote: »

You rely on anecdotes. Do the math, with so few fluent Irish speakers, it would be difficult to ensure one was avaliable for all situations. Quite impractical, and not essential.

Do you not see any irony in your argument at all?

An Coilean · 01-01-2014 1:53pm

MadPat wrote: »

You rely on anecdotes. Do the math, with so few fluent Irish speakers, it would be difficult to ensure one was avaliable for all situations. Quite impractical, and not essential.

You need actual figures to 'do the math'. Given that your arguments thus far have been bereft of actual facts and figures, it seems quite unlikely that you have gotten around to doing the math yourself.

The reality is that the state could make far better use of the resources it has to provide services in Irish. Making better use of the resources curently available is not an issue of impracticality, it would in reality be quite straightforward.
The state could quite easily improve service provision in Irish significantly.

RandomName2 · 01-01-2014 2:46pm

Grudaire wrote: »

Ironically I know several doctors with Irish as well

Don't forget that previously that 600 points was a prerequisite for Medicine. Many would have done very well in Irish.

But this is nonsense arguments.

I did relatively well in Irish. So did many of my classmates. Many would have dropped it had they been able, but it was a mandatory subject (a hangover of the pseudo-fascistic nationalistic movements that had control at the foundation of our state). So although I can speak Irish, I can't, of course, in any meaningful way. But that's grand, because there never is call to be able to, unless you happen to be paid by the state specifically for that purpose. The concept of making public servants in general more proficient in this cultural-nationalistic pursuit seems to me to be principally the product of those who have a financial incentive in the promulgation of the national language.

Irish Language Commissioner resigns

Comments