Scrap the Irish Language Commissioner

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Employed by the government, to satisfy a demand the government created. I have no sympathy for them.

I veer slightly to the other side here. Part of a government's remit, I would argue, is to maintain fund and promote arts, culture and expression. That includes langauge. I may not like the way they go about this, and I certainly disagree with the people who are employed to do the above (let's face it: if someone who doesn't learn the lanaguge in 14 years is "stupid", what does it say about entire organisations who have been trying to promote it for decades and still fail to turn it into a widely-spoken language?), but what is left if said government turns around and does nothing?

nesf

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I veer slightly to the other side here. Part of a government's remit, I would argue, is to maintain fund and promote arts, culture and expression. That includes langauge. I may not like the way they go about this, and I certainly disagree with the people who are employed to do the above (let's face it: if someone who doesn't learn the lanaguge in 14 years is "stupid", what does it say about entire organisations who have been trying to promote it for decades and still fail to turn it into a widely-spoken language?), but what is left if said government turns around and does nothing?

14 years of sitting in a classroom without working on your language skills and ability to speak it outside of the classroom will inevitably mean, unless you are a true linguistic savant, that you won't be able to speak it to a half decent level.

The reason we see this attitude everywhere is because the vast majority of people in this country are monoglots so they don't have any idea of just how much work is involved to get to a decent speaking standard in a language. 14 years of sitting in class is nowhere near enough. Now 14 years of immersion on the other hand would do it quite well.

Lightbulb Sun

nesf wrote: »

14 years of sitting in a classroom without working on your language skills and ability to speak it outside of the classroom will inevitably mean, unless you are a true linguistic savant, that you won't be able to speak it to a half decent level.

The reason we see this attitude everywhere is because the vast majority of people in this country are monoglots so they don't have any idea of just how much work is involved to get to a decent speaking standard in a language. 14 years of sitting in class is nowhere near enough. Now 14 years of immersion on the other hand would do it quite well.

I think living in a Gaeltacht either fulltime/temporarily (on a regular basis) and Gaelscoils are the only true immersive experiences at the moment.

In English speaking schools, its one subject contained within no true Irish speaking environment. Then when kids step outside it's just a continuation of English language life really.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nesf wrote: »

14 years of sitting in a classroom without working on your language skills and ability to speak it outside of the classroom will inevitably mean, unless you are a true linguistic savant, that you won't be able to speak it to a half decent level.

The reason we see this attitude everywhere is because the vast majority of people in this country are monoglots so they don't have any idea of just how much work is involved to get to a decent speaking standard in a language. 14 years of sitting in class is nowhere near enough. Now 14 years of immersion on the other hand would do it quite well.

Oh, I know. I was referencing another poster there.

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Only if you consider Irish to be part of your heritage.

No, not really true.
You see many people these days love the richness and diversity of cultures around the planet and appreciate that sometimes special effort is needed to protect aspects of these from being subsumed by a larger one (do you think for example that the only people in north America who feel that native American cultures/languages are worth protecting are native North Americans?).
Though there are still many around who think only "theirs" is of any value they are usually associated with far right movements or people with xenophobic or racist tendencies who are usually looked down upon by most liberal and broad minded people in modern day Europe.
Interestingly one of the fears of some northern Unionist people is that their culture is not considered to be worth anything to those from a nationalist background and your attitude of "only mine is worth anything to me" is one of the root causes of the distrust we still have on this island between two culturally different peoples.

Now that said any person with Irish ancestry irrespective of religion, creed, colour or political affiliations who believes Irish had no part in their history needs to brush up a little on the history of Ireland.

9959

Rubeter wrote: »

No, not really true.
You see many people these days love the richness and diversity of cultures around the planet and appreciate that sometimes special effort is needed to protect aspects of these from being subsumed by a larger one (do you think for example that the only people in north America who feel that native American cultures/languages are worth protecting are native North Americans?).
Though there are still many around who think only "theirs" is of any value they are usually associated with far right movements or people with xenophobic or racist tendencies who are usually looked down upon by most liberal and broad minded people in modern day Europe.

Now that said any person with Irish ancestry irrespective of religion, creed, colour or political affiliations who believes Irish had no part in their history needs to brush up a little on the history of Ireland.

Mad stuff, 'thinly veiled' Irish language enthusiasts are broad-minded, left of centre liberals rooting for the small guy....eh, me arse Ted.

Rubeter

9959 wrote: »

Mad stuff, 'thinly veiled' Irish language enthusiasts are broad-minded, left of centre liberals rooting for the small guy....eh, me arse Ted.

Interesting how you read something into a post that is not there in any way whatsoever and then disagree with it, not the best of conversational/debating skills there I'm afraid.
I don't suppose you have something a little more worthwhile to add to the conversation? Such as responding to an actual point maybe.

opti0nal

Rubeter wrote: »

You see many people these days love the richness and diversity of cultures around the planet and appreciate that sometimes special effort is needed to protect aspects of these from being subsumed by a larger one (do you think for example that the only people in north America who feel that native American cultures/languages are worth protecting are native North Americans?).

Interesting comparison. Are all schoolchildren in America forced to learn one of the native American languages?

Other than language preference, what is the cultural difference between Irish speakers and an English speakers?

Rubeter

opti0nal wrote: »

Interesting comparison. Are all schoolchildren in America forced to learn one of the native American languages?

Nope. I thought you would have known that.

Other than language preference, what is the cultural difference between Irish speakers and an English speakers?

None that I know of, do you know any?

9959

Rubeter wrote: »

Nope. I thought you would have known that.

None that I know of, do you know any?

Why so circumspect now?

The post to which myself and 'opti0nal' responded was majestically wide-ranging in scope and vision, covering the indigenous population of North America, the fascism of nationalist movements in central Europe, and the little matter of cultural identities in Northern Ireland.
Was really looking forward to your next 'opus' where - I was hoping - at least a passing reference might be made to the Israel/Palestine conflict, or a helpful guide to the Balkan conflict of the '90's, imagine my disappointment on reading the less than informative, monosyllabic reply "None that I know of....."
Smarten yourself up and stop slumping, stamina man, stamina!

Rubeter

9959 wrote: »

Why so circumspect now?

Questions asked, questions answered.

The post to which myself and 'opti0nal' responded was majestically wide-ranging in scope and vision, covering the indigenous population of North America, the fascism of nationalist movements in central Europe, and the little matter of cultural identities in Northern Ireland.
Was really looking forward to your next 'opus' where - I was hoping - at least a passing reference might be made to the Israel/Palestine conflict, or a helpful guide to the Balkan conflict of the '90's, imagine my disappointment on reading the less than informative, monosyllabic reply "None that I know of....."

Tough.

Smarten yourself up and stop slumping, stamina man, stamina!

I'll take that a "no" to my request for you to maybe respond with something relevant to the point I raised. 'Till you decide to do that, bye.......

9959

Rubeter wrote: »

Questions asked, questions answered.

Tough.

I'll take that a "no" to my request for you to maybe respond with something relevant to the point I raised. 'Till you decide to do that, bye.......

That's better, you're back.

"take that a "no"", unless of course you can guide me towards your 'point', your post conflated many issues, I think you might also be confusing making a point with making a post, you constructed the latter, but neglected to include the former.
Try again, but this time stick to the subject under discussion, rather than taking us on a geopolitical world tour of your wildest imaginings.
Good luck to you!

opti0nal

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I veer slightly to the other side here. Part of a government's remit, I would argue, is to maintain fund and promote arts, culture and expression. ..... but what is left if said government turns around and does nothing?

The problem is that rather than attempting to do what you say, i.e. promote art, culture and expression, the government is pursuing CnaG's absurd 'Main Aim' of restoring Irish as the common language of Ireland.

If funding and goverment interference in people's rights were reduced to that commensurate with any other cultural endeavour, Irish would still be spoken by enthusiastic, passionate people.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

9959 wrote: »

Mad stuff, 'thinly veiled' Irish language enthusiasts are broad-minded, left of centre liberals rooting for the small guy....eh, me arse Ted.

In fairness, there's been evidence to the contrary in this very thread.

opti0nal wrote: »

The problem is that rather than attempting to do what you say, i.e. promote art, culture and expression, the government is pursuing CnaG's absurd 'Main Aim' of restoring Irish as the common language of Ireland.

Agreed. As i said, I didn't necessarily agree with how they went about achieving their aims.

(Is CnaG's 'Main Aim' as described? Sounds a bit arrogant, not to mention conformist)

If funding and goverment interference in people's rights were reduced to that commensurate with any other cultural endeavour, Irish would still be spoken by enthusiastic, passionate people.

A few problems here.

I can't really accept the way you use "funding" and "government interferance" in the same sectence as if they are synonyms of each other. Whcih one is it? If you mean funding, do you have figures to show how much they fund Irish compared to other endeavours? If you mean interferance, a comparison is impossible because you can't measure interferance in other endeavours.

feargale

A very long thread this. Well, hands up anybody who has been persuaded to change their original position by one jot.

DJP

Irrespective of if we have an Irish Language Commissioner Government Departments and Councils and some other State and semi-State bodies will still naturally have to comply with the Official Languages Act.

opti0nal

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

(Is CnaG's 'Main Aim' as described? Sounds a bit arrogant, not to mention conformist)

From the CnaG website:

Conradh na Gaeilge is the democratic forum for the Irish-speaking community and promotes the language throughout the whole of Ireland and around the world. Is main aim is to reinstate the Irish language as the common tongue of Ireland.

Many Irish enthusiasts will deny the existence of the main aim or deny any association with CnaG. But this is the real agenda.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I can't really accept the way you use "funding" and "government interferance" in the same sectence as if they are synonyms of each other. Whcih one is it? If you mean funding, do you have figures to show how much they fund Irish compared to other endeavours? If you mean interferance, a comparison is impossible because you can't measure interferance in other endeavours.

'Funding' is the cost of providing Irish lessons to children. Interference is the forcing of children to learn Irish.

Darren J. Prior wrote: »

Irrespective of if we have an Irish Language Commissioner Government Departments and Councils and some other State and semi-State bodies will still naturally have to comply with the Official Languages Act.

The Irish Language Commissioner's job was created by the Official Languages Act. He and his staff enforce Irish language policy from an office building in Spiddal. Abolish the OLA and there is no Language Comissioner job.

Rubeter

opti0nal wrote: »

Many Irish enthusiasts will deny the existence of the main aim or deny any association with CnaG. But this is the real agenda.

CnaG want Irish to be the main language of the country, so what?
The only possible reason I can think of that would produce the attitude you have about that "main aim", is if you are scared (and I mean really really scared) that it might actually happen.
This is quite amusing because it is so incredibly unlikely and you must imagine the majority would not retain the ability or desire to also speak English, which is so unlikely as to be unthinkable.
Your attitude in relation to this "main aim" is most extraordinarily entertaining.

opti0nal

Rubeter wrote: »

CnaG want Irish to be the main language of the country, so what?
The only possible reason I can think of that would produce the attitude you have about that "main aim", is if you are scared (and I mean really really scared) that it might actually happen.

No, I'm outraged at the human and financial cost of attempting to bring this about.

There nothing funny about forcing children to speak Irish.

Lelantos

opti0nal wrote: »

No, I'm outraged at the human and financial cost of attempting to bring this about.

There nothing funny about forcing children to speak Irish.

More worried about religion being forced upon them at school myself.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

feargale wrote: »

A very long thread this. Well, hands up anybody who has been persuaded to change their original position by one jot.

My initial reaction was "no - just employ common sense", but having read the official (ans somewhat one-sided) report of the gardai incident I'm now leaning towads yes.

opti0nal wrote: »

From the CnaG website:

Many Irish enthusiasts will deny the existence of the main aim or deny any association with CnaG. But this is the real agenda.

Idiots. Nothing "democratic" about its main aim at all. Glad to see that it's not a universal sentiment amongst Gaelgiori.

'Funding' is the cost of providing Irish lessons to children. Interference is the forcing of children to learn Irish.

The Irish Language Commissioner's job was created by the Official Languages Act. He and his staff enforce Irish language policy from an office building in Spiddal. Abolish the OLA and there is no Language Comissioner job.

I don't think that's accurate as the funding for Irish lessons comes from the department of the education, at which point you're debating funding of primary schools and not that of pormotion of the Irish langauge.

I also disagree with your definition of interferance. You could change the last word of that sentence to any subject and still have it stand and I don;t think an a la carte education system is a practciable idea.

Rubeter

opti0nal wrote: »

No, I'm outraged at the human and financial cost of attempting to bring this about.

There nothing funny about forcing children to speak Irish.

Your posts regarding the "main aim" show it is the fact of the main aim that bothers you, that you are also outraged at the other points you mention above does not detract from this.
It is your frenzied attitude surrounding this "horrific" main aim of CnaG that I am laughing at. Ha ha ha!!!

Rubeter

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Idiots. Nothing "democratic" about its main aim at all. Glad to see that it's not a universal sentiment amongst Gaelgiori.

If a small society or lobby group stated its main aim was to get rid of some barbaric practice that the vast majority of the citizens of a country engaged in for say religious reasons, would that be undemocratic?
It is not undemocratic to wish to see Ireland become Irish speaking, just as it is not undemocratic for some people in the north to wish for a UI or undemocratic for some people in the republic to wish for, or even lobby for, a joining with the UK.
The very fact that people can openly wish for and state these things is what democracy is all about.

Iwasfrozen

Rubeter wrote: »

If a small society or lobby group stated its main aim was to get rid of some barbaric practice that the vast majority of the citizens of a country engaged in for say religious reasons, would that be undemocratic?
It is not undemocratic to wish to see Ireland become Irish speaking, just as it is not undemocratic for some people in the north to wish for a UI or undemocratic for some people in the republic to wish for, or even lobby for, a joining with the UK.
The very fact that people can openly wish for and state these things is what democracy is all about.

Do you agree with the main aim?

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you agree with the main aim?

I would absolutely love it if Ireland was a mainly Irish speaking country.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Rubeter wrote: »

If a small society or lobby group stated its main aim was to get rid of some barbaric practice that the vast majority of the citizens of a country engaged in for say religious reasons, would that be undemocratic?
It is not undemocratic to wish to see Ireland become Irish speaking, just as it is not undemocratic for some people in the north to wish for a UI or undemocratic for some people in the republic to wish for, or even lobby for, a joining with the UK.
The very fact that people can openly wish for and state these things is what democracy is all about.

First of all, just to clarify, the main aim stated is for the langauge to become the "common tongue", not the "main language" as you stated earlier.

If the majority of a nation's citizens are engaged in any practice and want it legal than it is, by definition, democratic. Whether it's morally right or wrong or barabric is a moot point. Of course, the minorities can state what they wish, but that's freedom of speech, which is just one aspect of a democracy.

I called CnaG's aim undemocratic because the majority of people in this country are happy speaking English and would not support this change. If they did, efforts would be in place to make it so.

Rubeter wrote: »

I would absolutely love it if Ireland was a mainly Irish speaking country.

Nice. But are you prepared for the probabilty that other people will continue to say no thanks on such a level to make this pretty much impossible?

Rubeter

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

First of all, just to clarify, the main aim stated is for the langauge to become the "common tongue", not the "main language" as you stated earlier.

If the majority of a nation's citizens are engaged in any practice and want it legal than it is, by definition, democratic. Whether it's morally right or wrong or barabric is a moot point. Of course, the minorities can state what they wish, but that's freedom of speech, which is just one aspect of a democracy.

I called CnaG's aim undemocratic because the majority of people in this country are happy speaking English and would not support this change. If they did, efforts would be in place to make it so.

It is not undemocratic to desire to see a change to how a majority act, nor hold a differing opinion.

Nice. But are you prepared for the probabilty that other people will continue to say no thanks on such a level to make this pretty much impossible?

Have a read of this post taking note of the words "incredibly unlikely" and have a guess as to what my answer to your question might be.

Iwasfrozen

Rubeter wrote: »

I would absolutely love it if Ireland was a mainly Irish speaking country.

Do you love the idea enough to learn the language? Do you speak it?

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you love the idea enough to learn the language? Do you speak it?

Yes and yes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Rubeter wrote: »

It is not undemocratic to desire to see a change to how a majority act, nor hold a differing opinion.

No, but I never said it wasn't. What I said was that their aim, "to reinstate the Irish language as the common tongue of Ireland" is undemocratic because it fails to take into account the will of everyone else.

Have a read of this post taking note of the words "incredibly unlikely" and have a guess as to what my answer to your question might be.

Likeliness or unlikliness isn't relevant to the defiition of "democratic". Your next answer will be "42".