Irish Language Act

Gaelgangnuis

Sinn Féin are bringing forward a new consultation prior to the introduction of an Irish Language Act for northern Ireland. This move has provoked a predictable backlash from unionist parties as well as some over the top commentary as to the 'weponisation' of the language on the part of some politicians.

The proposals themselves are quite modest, with the highlights including the repeal of the ban on the use of Irish in northern courts, a guarantee of Irish medium education for those who want it, the creation of a language commissioner and provision for the use of Irish in Stormont.

Personally, while the proposals are quite basic, I think they are a reasonable starting point for discussion. While the unionist establishment has reacted vigorously against the proposals, that is not to say that the unionist community as a whole would necessarily reject the notion of an Irish language act. A majority in NI believe that people who want to access services in Irish should be allowed to do so and there has been a growing awareness amongst unionists that the Irish language is not the sole preserve of the nationalist community.

While it is clear that any Irish Language Act, regardless of its contents, will be rejected by the Unionist Parties, especially in the run up to the election, it is never the less more than possible that an Irish language act could be brought in after the elections as part of a deal in the next administration. As such the shape of the proposals that come out of this consultation may be important in the form a future act takes.

Iwasfrozen

Gaelgangnuis wrote: »

Sinn Féin are bringing forward a new consultation prior to the introduction of an Irish Language Act for northern Ireland. This move has provoked a predictable backlash from unionist parties as well as some over the top commentary as to the 'weponisation' of the language on the part of some politicians.

The proposals themselves are quite modest, with the highlights including the repeal of the ban on the use of Irish in northern courts, a guarantee of Irish medium education for those who want it, the creation of a language commissioner and provision for the use of Irish in Stormont.

Personally, while the proposals are quite basic, I think they are a reasonable starting point for discussion. While the unionist establishment has reacted vigorously against the proposals, that is not to say that the unionist community as a whole would necessarily reject the notion of an Irish language act. A majority in NI believe that people who want to access services in Irish should be allowed to do so and there has been a growing awareness amongst unionists that the Irish language is not the sole preserve of the nationalist community.

While it is clear that any Irish Language Act, regardless of its contents, will be rejected by the Unionist Parties, especially in the run up to the election, it is never the less more than possible that an Irish language act could be brought in after the elections as part of a deal in the next administration. As such the shape of the proposals that come out of this consultation may be important in the form a future act takes.

Providing everyone with the opportunity of an Irish medium education is not a modest proposal though and would cost a significant amount of public money, we don't even have that in the South where Irish language legislation borders on the draconian.

Gaelgangnuis

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Providing everyone with the opportunity of an Irish medium education is not a modest proposal though and would cost a significant amount of public money, we don't even have that in the South where Irish language legislation borders on the draconian.

Not necessarily, at the end of the day weather its through Irish or English, the same amount of kids are being educated, beyond some initial set up costs, education through Irish need not be more expencive than education through English.

As for 'draconian' language legislation in the south, its far from it, our language act is much weaker than that found in place in our nearest neighbor the UK for example.
Many other countries that have Language Legislation have more comprehensive provisions than we have here.

Iwasfrozen

Gaelgangnuis wrote: »

Not necessarily, at the end of the day weather its through Irish or English, the same amount of kids are being educated, beyond some initial set up costs, education through Irish need not be more expencive than education through English.

As for 'draconian' language legislation in the south, its far from it, our language act is much weaker than that found in place in our nearest neighbor the UK for example.
Many other countries that have Language Legislation have more comprehensive provisions than we have here.

Yes necessarily, ensuring every child can have education through Irish or English medium is a huge duplication of effort. You would need more teachers on payroll and more classrooms. It would be hugely inefficient, especially in rural areas.

Having less draconian laws than Quebec for example doesn't mean our laws aren't draconian btw. Our language laws would be a lot more acceptable if we weren't still forcing children to learn the language in 2015 though.

gallag

Haha, complete remodeling the education and justice systems are a "modest proposal"

Whatever the pro's and cons of these proposals describing them as modest is a fair bit off!

Then we will have the other ones demanding ulster Scotts having the same level of use leaving the rest of us wondering why our children's education is revolving around dead languages that are no more than political tools instead of learning languages from the world's leading economies or computer coding or even a unified sign language giving all children in the world the ability to communicate in one generation!

NIMAN

Maybe SF should accept that very few people in NI have any interest in learning the Irish language.

This to me sounds like unnecessary cost for a very small minority of people.

kabakuyu

NIMAN wrote: »

Maybe SF should accept that very few people in NI have any interest in learning the Irish language.

This to me sounds like unnecessary cost for a very small minority of people.

Or is it a small minority of Unionist people who don't want to learn Gaeilige?

Iwasfrozen

kabakuyu wrote: »

Or is it a small minority of Unionist people who don't want to learn Gaeilige?

No. A very large majority of people in the South don't want to learn Irish. Here is a infograph based on data from the last census that shows the % of people who speak Irish daily outside the education system.



As you can see the vast majority of the map is less than 10% with only small sparsely populated pockets where the number exceeds 10%.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No. A very large majority of people in the South don't want to learn Irish. Here is a infograph based on data from the last census that shows the % of people who speak Irish daily outside the education system.



As you can see the vast majority of the map is less than 10% with only small sparsely populated pockets where the number exceeds 10%.

All that proves is that they dont know it, not that they dont want to learn it.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

All that proves is that they dont know it, not that they dont want to learn it.

People who want to learn any language make an effort to speak it outside the education system.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

People who want to learn any language make an effort to speak it outside the education system.

You just argued that it would cost a huge amount to make learning Irish available to everyone. Now youre arguing that it's so widely available that anyone who wants to learn it easily can. You are all over the place.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You just argued that it would cost a huge amount to make learning Irish available to everyone.

I did.

Now youre arguing that it's so widely available that anyone who wants to learn it easily can. You are all over the place.

I am not. I'm arguing that people who want to learn a language make an effort to speak it outside the eduction system. They may speak it badly but they make the effort to try.

mackerski

Crooked Jack wrote: »

All that proves is that they dont know it, not that they dont want to learn it.

Most of the people concerned spent 13 years being taught the language. Voting with their feet, I'd say.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I did.


I am not. I'm arguing that people who want to learn a language make an effort to speak it outside the eduction system. They may speak it badly but they make the effort to try.

So your point is what? That there's no support for an Irish language act in the north? Despite the fact that it's a central goal of the most popular party in the north? Despite the fact that the Liofa campaign surpassed its target four times over?

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So your point is what? That there's no support for an Irish language act in the north? Despite the fact that it's a central goal of the most popular party in the north? Despite the fact that the Liofa campaign surpassed its target four times over?

No. My point is that the majority of Irish people don't want to learn Irish, in response to this post.

kabakuyu wrote:

Or is it a small minority of Unionist people who don't want to learn Gaeilige?

You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink, you can flush the equivalent of billions down the toilet promoting Irish over the past century like we did in the south but you can't make people learn a language they don't want to learn. Even if they do pay it lip service.

NIMAN

Lets face facts, very very few Irish people can speak the Irish language fluently, and very few of them have any inclination to learn to.

Born and raised in a Catholic city in NI, very few people I ever met could speak Irish. Anyone who did it at school hated it.

I now live in RoI, and just as few can speak it, and that includes many who studied it for nearly 13yrs at school.

Its hard to accept for some people, but the vast majority of Irish people are happy with English as their main language. Don't believe the figures of "1,000,000 people in Ireland can speak Irish fluently", thats balls.

If I had the choice I'd learn a pile of other languages before Irish, and I would prefer my children did too, but unfortunately that isn't offered to them at present.

eire4

NIMAN wrote: »

Lets face facts, very very few Irish people can speak the Irish language fluently, and very few of them have any inclination to learn to.

Born and raised in a Catholic city in NI, very few people I ever met could speak Irish. Anyone who did it at school hated it.

I now live in RoI, and just as few can speak it, and that includes many who studied it for nearly 13yrs at school.

Its hard to accept for some people, but the vast majority of Irish people are happy with English as their main language. Don't believe the figures of "1,000,000 people in Ireland can speak Irish fluently", thats balls.

If I had the choice I'd learn a pile of other languages before Irish, and I would prefer my children did too, but unfortunately that isn't offered to them at present.

Certainly there are those like yourself that have no real interest in Irish. How the language has been handled in Ireland over the last 100 years or so has been a real tregedy.


Having said that we have seen a significant growth in Gaelscoileanna in the last 10 years or so to the point that it is hard for parents at times to find a place for their kids. There is a much more positive outlook and attitude toward our language which is also such an important part of our cultural heritage.


I do not know where the current Gaelscoilenna growth will lead in the coming decades but I for one see it as a real positive that the negative stigmas attatched to our language are changing and there is a real growth happening with our language.

ODEON123

MY kids are 100% going to a gaelscoil keep the language going, tens of thousands of people fought and died just to speak Irish and to have our own culture and now we have what they fought for except the language because the Irish education system cant teach Irish

Godge

ODEON123 wrote: »

MY kids are 100% going to a gaelscoil keep the language going, tens of thousands of people fought and died just to speak Irish and to have our own culture and now we have what they fought for except the language because the Irish education system cant teach Irish

Who are the tens of thousands dead?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Casualties

3,531 killed as a result of the terrorist campaign known as "The Troubles"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Civil_War#Casualties

For the civil war "For total combatant and civilian deaths, a minimum of 1,000 and a maximum of 4,000 have been suggested"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence#Casualties

"The total number killed in the guerrilla war of 1919–21 between Republicans and British forces in what became the Irish Free State came to over 1,400"


Even if you include the Civil War (where we were killing each other) as well as the deaths on the other side, you are well short of 10,000 who died, let alone tens of thousands.

ODEON123

Godge wrote: »

Who are the tens of thousands dead?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Casualties

3,531 killed as a result of the terrorist campaign known as "The Troubles"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Civil_War#Casualties

For the civil war "For total combatant and civilian deaths, a minimum of 1,000 and a maximum of 4,000 have been suggested"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence#Casualties

"The total number killed in the guerrilla war of 1919–21 between Republicans and British forces in what became the Irish Free State came to over 1,400"


Even if you include the Civil War (where we were killing each other) as well as the deaths on the other side, you are well short of 10,000 who died, let alone tens of thousands.

If you did a bit of research or knew your stuff you would know that the rebellion of 1798 there was a death toll of between 10000-50000 deaths so there is several thousands and then when you add on all the other deaths from several other uprisings you get a good bit more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_in_Ireland

Iwasfrozen

ODEON123 wrote: »

If you did a bit of research or knew your stuff you would know that the rebellion of 1798 there was a death toll of between 10000-50000 deaths so there is several thousands and then when you add on all the other deaths from several other uprisings you get a good bit more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_in_Ireland

How many of those guys explicitly died so your sprogs could unlearn Irish in school? Compared to the number who fought because they were hungry and the young Irelanders offered food.

Nichard Dixon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How many of those guys explicitly died so your sprogs could unlearn Irish in school? Compared to the number who fought because they were hungry and the young Irelanders offered food.

So we have the usual reduction of one sort of oppression as not being as bad as another sort of oppression. Whether it was as bad or not, Irish people should not have had their culture suppressed by colonialists, neither by musket carrying warriors in the 19th nor their keyboard wielding successors today.

Iwasfrozen

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

So we have the usual reduction of one sort of oppression as not being as bad as another sort of oppression. Whether it was as bad or not, Irish people should not have had their culture suppressed by colonialists, neither by musket carrying warriors in the 19th nor their keyboard wielding successors today.

No one is having their culture surpassed. We don't believe Irish should be mandatory in school. That's not oppression, the opposite in face.

The people who feel the need to force Irish on anglophone kids are the only people suppressing culture.

gananam

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No one is having their culture surpassed. We don't believe Irish should be mandatory in school. That's not oppression, the opposite in face.

The people who feel the need to force Irish on anglophone kids are the only people suppressing culture.

The state forcing people to speak English when conducting their business with the state is in fact the state suppressing the Irish language, especially when it happens in Gaeltacht areas.

Iwasfrozen

gananam wrote: »

The state forcing people to speak English when conducting their business with the state is in fact the state suppressing the Irish language, especially when it happens in Gaeltacht areas.

The state choosing the language is which it conducts business with its citizens is not suppression. By that definition we are suppressing all languages but Englsh.

gananam

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The state choosing the language is which it conducts business with its citizens is not suppression. By that definition we are suppressing all languages but Englsh.

Irish is ingenious to Ireland, by forcing Irish speakers to speak English in their own country, the state is suppressing Irish.

If forcing a language community to speak a different language in their own county is not suppressing that language, then what is?

Iwasfrozen

gananam wrote: »

Irish is ingenious to Ireland, by forcing Irish speakers to speak English in their own country, the state is suppressing Irish.

If forcing a language community to speak a different language in their own county is not suppressing that language, then what is?

But that's not what you wrote. You wrote "The state forcing people to speak English when conducting their business with the state is in fact the state suppressing the Irish language" that has nothing to do with Irish being native to Ireland.

No one is forcing Irish speakers to speak English. The state is making a decision that they will only correspond with their citizens in English. The citizens themselves are free to converse in whatever language they choose.

katydid

ODEON123 wrote: »

MY kids are 100% going to a gaelscoil keep the language going, tens of thousands of people fought and died just to speak Irish and to have our own culture

Tens of thousands? When?

katydid

ODEON123 wrote: »

If you did a bit of research or knew your stuff you would know that the rebellion of 1798 there was a death toll of between 10000-50000 deaths so there is several thousands and then when you add on all the other deaths from several other uprisings you get a good bit more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_in_Ireland

And how many of them died so future generations could speak Irish?

gananam

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But that's not what you wrote. You wrote "The state forcing people to speak English when conducting their business with the state is in fact the state suppressing the Irish language" that has nothing to do with Irish being native to Ireland.

Of course it does, Irish is native to Ireland, the state forcing these people to use English when dealing with the state is a denial of these peoples language rights. That the language is native to Ireland is a key issue. Irish speakers are not a group of people who came here knowing that the state was an English speaking one. They are an indigenous community which places an obligation on the state to cater for them in their own language. There are Irish speakers in the US and Canada but no one complains when the state does not provide services in Irish for them, Irish is not native to North America.
In the case of First Nations and their languages however it's a different story.

No one is forcing Irish speakers to speak English. The state is making a decision that they will only correspond with their citizens in English. The citizens themselves are free to converse in whatever language they choose.

This is an almost Orwellian level of delusion. If someone wants to speak in Irish when carrying out their business with the state and the state does not give them that option, how is the state not forcing Irish speakers to speak English? You do realise that interacting with the state is not always optional, right?

'The state is making a decision that they will only correspond with their citizens in English.'
Sorry, but the state has no business making such a decision, this is in breach of the rights of Irish citizens.

Iwasfrozen

gananam wrote: »

Of course it does, Irish is native to Ireland, the state forcing these people to use English when dealing with the state is a denial of these peoples language rights. That the language is native to Ireland is a key issue. Irish speakers are not a group of people who came here knowing that the state was an English speaking one. They are an indigenous community which places an obligation on the state to cater for them in their own language. There are Irish speakers in the US and Canada but no one complains when the state does not provide services in Irish for them, Irish is not native to North America.
In the case of First Nations and their languages however it's a different story.

I don't follow you. Either you claim the ability to receive state services in your native language is or is not an inalienable right. Rights are not conditional on the geographic location the claimant is stationed. It seems you're trying to say the government must provide services in Irish but not any other language because it happens to have jurisdiction over the territory Irish used to be spoken in.

In other words you're saying language rights are inalienable for those who speak a language with historical precedence in the area they live but not for those who have moved to another country / territory / jurisdiction / made up line in the sand.

French used to be spoken in Ireland by the Norman lords, should we provide services in French? What about Viking? Vikings were quite common on the Eastern shore and of course founded Dublin. Latin? The church spoke almost exclusively in Latin.

This sounds farcical but you're claiming people have a right to access services in a language that has precedence in the land the government happens to hold jurisdiction over.

This is an almost Orwellian level of delusion. If someone wants to speak in Irish when carrying out their business with the state and the state does not give them that option, how is the state not forcing Irish speakers to speak English? You do realise that interacting with the state is not always optional, right?

'The state is making a decision that they will only correspond with their citizens in English.'
Sorry, but the state has no business making such a decision, this is in breach of the rights of Irish citizens.

Rights that are only granted by legislation and can be removed by legislation or inaction on the part of the Government. I'm sorry but this is an anglophone country and that isn't going to change.

gananam

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't follow you. Either you claim the ability to receive state services in your native language is or is not an inalienable right. Rights are not conditional on the geographic location the claimant is stationed. It seems you're trying to say the government must provide services in Irish but not any other language because it happens to have jurisdiction over the territory Irish used to be spoken in.

In other words you're saying language rights are inalienable for those who speak a language with historical precedence in the area they live but not for those who have moved to another country / territory / jurisdiction / made up line in the sand.

French used to be spoken in Ireland by the Norman lords, should we provide services in French? What about Viking? Vikings were quite common on the Eastern shore and of course founded Dublin. Latin? The church spoke almost exclusively in Latin.

This sounds farcical but you're claiming people have a right to access services in a language that has precedence in the land the government happens to hold jurisdiction over.

You really need to educate yourself on minority language rights.
A good place to start would be the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

While the charter is not directly applicable to the Irish language in the Republic (though it is directly applicable to the Irish language in the North) it gives an insight into how minority language rights are dealt with.

For example, straight from the preamble:
''Considering that the right to use a regional or minority language in private and public life is an inalienable right conforming to the principles embodied in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and according to the spirit of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; ''

So as we can see, it is held that members of a minority language community do indeed have a right to use their language both in the private and public sphere.

In terms of the issue of where the language is spoken, the charter defines a regional or minority language as one which is ''traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population''.

''It seems you're trying to say the government must provide services in Irish but not any other language because it happens to have jurisdiction over the territory Irish used to be spoken in.''

Yes this accurate enough, and as demonstrated above, there is plenty of basis for it. Though lets try to be accurate, there is no 'used to' about the speaking of Irish in Ireland. Irish is a living language that is spoken here by a community of speakers that number in the tens of thousands of people. These people are living breathing human beings, they are not a community that 'used to' exist, something which distinguishes them from 'Viking', Latin and Norman French speakers in Ireland. Living people have language rights, dead people from centuries ago don't, see how it works now? It's quite simple really.

Rights that are only granted by legislation and can be removed by legislation or inaction on the part of the Government. I'm sorry but this is an anglophone country and that isn't going to change.

Rights granted in legislation can be removed by legislation, but there is little chance of that happening in the case of Irish. As for government inaction, that's what courts are for. There is a list of cases that Irish speakers have taken against the state to vindicate their rights to use Irish. A notable one in 2001 essentially forced the states hand in enacting the OLA.

Iwasfrozen

gananam wrote: »

You really need to educate yourself on minority language rights.

I'm good thanks.

A good place to start would be the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

While the charter is not directly applicable to the Irish language in the Republic (though it is directly applicable to the Irish language in the North) it gives an insight into how minority language rights are dealt with.

For example, straight from the preamble:
''Considering that the right to use a regional or minority language in private and public life is an inalienable right conforming to the principles embodied in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and according to the spirit of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; ''

So as we can see, it is held that members of a minority language community do indeed have a right to use their language both in the private and public sphere.

In terms of the issue of where the language is spoken, the charter defines a regional or minority language as one which is ''traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population''.

''It seems you're trying to say the government must provide services in Irish but not any other language because it happens to have jurisdiction over the territory Irish used to be spoken in.''

That's lovely, does it give people the right to access state services in Irish?

Yes this accurate enough, and as demonstrated above, there is plenty of basis for it. Though lets try to be accurate, there is no 'used to' about the speaking of Irish in Ireland. Irish is a living language that is spoken here by a community of speakers that number in the tens of thousands of people. These people are living breathing human beings, they are not a community that 'used to' exist, something which distinguishes them from 'Viking', Latin and Norman French speakers in Ireland. Living people have language rights, dead people from centuries ago don't, see how it works now? It's quite simple really.

I'm being quite accurate when I say used to. The Irish language community is dying and is only being kept alive by state intervention. You can't stop the inevitable forever though. As I've stated before this is an anglophone country and that isn't going to change.

Rights granted in legislation can be removed by legislation, but there is little chance of that happening in the case of Irish. As for government inaction, that's what courts are for. There is a list of cases that Irish speakers have taken against the state to vindicate their rights to use Irish. A notable one in 2001 essentially forced the states hand in enacting the OLA.

And how has the OLA worked out for you? Can you access all state services in Irish? Or has the government been half arsed at best in it's requirements to appease the courts?

I really don't get why you're so obsessed with keeping this useless language alive. It really doesn't affect me in my daily life but I find your obsession bizarre and distasteful.

gananam

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm good thanks.

So you want to have your opinion taken seriously but are unwilling to actually gain knowledge of the topic? Right, good luck with that.

That's lovely, does it give people the right to access state services in Irish?

The charter does give Irish speakers protection in the North, in the republic Irish as an official language and as such the charter does not apply because the state already recognizes the rights of the minority language community. Our constitution and legislation is what gives people the right to access state services in Irish.

I'm being quite accurate when I say used to. The Irish language community is dying and is only being kept alive by state intervention. You can't stop the inevitable forever though. As I've stated before this is an anglophone country and that isn't going to change.

No, actually you are being the opposite of accurate when you say used to, you are being obviously and demonstrably wrong. Irish speakers are people, they have rights and you will not deny their rights to them.

People have been confidently predicting the death of the Irish language for centuries, they are dead now, Irish is not.

Now, I know that you are one of the people that President Higgins referred to as 'those for whom Irish is not half dead enough', but you ill-informed opinion is just that, ill-informed.

And how has the OLA worked out for you? Can you access all state services in Irish? Or has the government been half arsed at best in it's requirements to appease the courts?

It's working out quite well actually. The range and standard of services has improved greatly in the last ten years. Of course the public service has dragged its feet, but then inertia is in the nature of large bureaucracies. The obligations under the law that have been imposed and the ability to access an efficient mechanism for the redress of failures by public bodies through An Coimisinéir Teanga have made a big difference.

Plenty of work to be done, but its nice to see that progress is being made.

I really don't get why you're so obsessed with keeping this useless language alive. It really doesn't affect me in my daily life but I find your obsession bizarre and distasteful.

You may consider Irish to be useless, but I'm not really interested in your opinion. Irish is useful to me, I use it every day, your opinion does not change that fact. You can use pejorative terms like 'obsessed' but a quick look at your posting history shows that you yourself seem to be quite obsessed with the Irish language. Tell me, has there been a thread involving the Irish language on this site that you have refrained from posting in?

Iwasfrozen

gananam wrote: »

So you want to have your opinion taken seriously but are unwilling to actually gain knowledge of the topic? Right, good luck with that.

I believe I have adequate knowledge on the topic. More than you if you think you have a constitutional right to access state services in Irish.

The charter does give Irish speakers protection in the North, in the republic Irish as an official language and as such the charter does not apply because the state already recognizes the rights of the minority language community. Our constitution and legislation is what gives people the right to access state services in Irish.

No. Not constitution and legislation, we've been through this, any rights Irish speakers have to access state services in Irish are purely legislative and court precedence. They can be removed whole of piecemeal without the need for a referendum.

No, actually you are being the opposite of accurate when you say used to, you are being obviously and demonstrably wrong. Irish speakers are people, they have rights and you will not deny their rights to them.

They have rights as people yes, access to state services in Irish is not one of them.

People have been confidently predicting the death of the Irish language for centuries, they are dead now, Irish is not.

Now, I know that you are one of the people that President Higgins referred to as 'those for whom Irish is not half dead enough', but you ill-informed opinion is just that, ill-informed.

People have been correctly predicting the death of the Irish language for centuries, the languages existence past their own lives does not prove them wrong unless they predicted the language would die within their life time.

Is Irish a dieing language? Of course. Will it survive as a minority language beyond my life time? Of course but that doesn't mean it isn't dieing.

I don't want to see the language dead, as long as my tax money isn't being wasted on it I don't care who speaks it.

It's working out quite well actually. The range and standard of services has improved greatly in the last ten years. Of course the public service has dragged its feet, but then inertia is in the nature of large bureaucracies. The obligations under the law that have been imposed and the ability to access an efficient mechanism for the redress of failures by public bodies through An Coimisinéir Teanga have made a big difference.

Plenty of work to be done, but its nice to see that progress is being made.

Can you access A&E in Irish? If you tried to live your lie totally through Irish in Dublin how would you get on?

You may consider Irish to be useless, but I'm not really interested in your opinion. Irish is useful to me, I use it every day, your opinion does not change that fact. You can use pejorative terms like 'obsessed' but a quick look at your posting history shows that you yourself seem to be quite obsessed with the Irish language. Tell me, has there been a thread involving the Irish language on this site that you have refrained from posting in?

In what context do you use it? In social contexts Irish is forced used. In professional context the job exists to fulfil an artificial demand created by the government. Neither make the language very useful.

You're fighting a losing battle and you know it. English is the language of international culture, business, politics and science. English is the world's lingua fanca and the most learned second language. In the near future the English language will grow in strength, it will dominate the globe connecting people of all races and cultures, the new language of Babel while Irish will wither away and die like thousands of other minority languages.

This isn't opinion, this is happening regardless of anyone's opinions. Globalization is changing the world for the better and there is no room for inward looking localisms.

gananam

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I believe I have adequate knowledge on the topic. More than you if you think you have a constitutional right to access state services in Irish.

Sorry, but between your self and the supreme court, I think i'm going to trust the supreme court.
You can call you ill-informed opinion 'knowledge' if you want, but its not much to go by if you ask me.

No. Not constitution and legislation, we've been through this, any rights Irish speakers have to access state services in Irish are purely legislative and court precedence. They can be removed whole of piecemeal without the need for a referendum.

Both legislation and court decision are based on the provisions of the constitution.

They have rights as people yes, access to state services in Irish is not one of them.

False.

People have been correctly predicting the death of the Irish language for centuries, the languages existence past their own lives does not prove them wrong unless they predicted the language would die within their life time.

If you are claiming to ability to predict the future, then there is really no point talking to you. If someone predicted, centuries ago, that the Irish language was dyeing and yet it lives on today, its fairly safe to say that the person who maid the claim was wrong.

Can you access A&E in Irish? If you tried to live your lie totally through Irish in Dublin how would you get on?

Good question, I haven't been near A&E for years, I will have to ask them.

In what context do you use it? In social contexts Irish is forced used. In professional context the job exists to fulfill an artificial demand created by the government. Neither make the language very useful.

Who are you to tell me if my use of Irish in social contexts is 'forced'? The only language I was ever forced to speak is English.

You're fighting a losing battle and you know it. English is the language of international culture, business, politics and science. English is the world's lingua fanca and the most learned second language. In the near future the English language will grow in strength, it will dominate the globe connecting people of all races and cultures, the new language of Babel while Irish will wither away and die like thousands of other minority languages.

Actually the English language has already started the process of falling apart. In another few hundred years there wont be an English language, just a family of languages that stem from English. That is part of the natural evolution of language, much the same thing happened to Latin.

This isn't opinion, this is happening regardless of anyone's opinions. Globalization is changing the world for the better and there is no room for inward looking localisms.

Thanks for confirming the intolerant nature of you beliefs. You might not think there is any room for my language or culture, but my culture and language are not going away.

ODEON123

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're fighting a losing battle and you know it. English is the language of international culture, business, politics and science. English is the world's lingua fanca and the most learned second language. In the near future the English language will grow in strength, it will dominate the globe connecting people of all races and cultures, the new language of Babel while Irish will wither away and die like thousands of other minority languages.

You should probably learn a but more since English is the 3rd most spoken language in the world behind Chinese and Spanish please explain how it is the the language of internation culture blah blah blah, dont think it will become a dominant language since chinese is spoken by more then three times that of english so your argument isnt valid

Godge

ODEON123 wrote: »

You should probably learn a but more since English is the 3rd most spoken language in the world behind Chinese and Spanish please explain how it is the the language of internation culture blah blah blah, dont think it will become a dominant language since chinese is spoken by more then three times that of english so your argument isnt valid

But English is the biggest second language as anyone involved in business, international culture, international relations, travel, politics or science learns English.

gananam

Godge wrote: »

But English is the biggest second language as anyone involved in business, international culture, international relations, travel, politics or science learns English.

Sorry, but this is false. While English is a relatively common language spoken in these areas, to suggest that 'anyone' involved in those areas speaks it, is laughable.

ancapailldorcha

For science, a lot of jobs in Germany, France, etc are advertised with the working language being English due to the international and collaborative nature of the profession.

katydid

gananam wrote: »

Sorry, but this is false. While English is a relatively common language spoken in these areas, to suggest that 'anyone' involved in those areas speaks it, is laughable.

MOST do. You are at a serious disadvantage in these areas if you don't have a good working knowledge of spoken and written English.

katydid

ODEON123 wrote: »

You should probably learn a but more since English is the 3rd most spoken language in the world behind Chinese and Spanish please explain how it is the the language of internation culture blah blah blah, dont think it will become a dominant language since chinese is spoken by more then three times that of english so your argument isnt valid

The amount of people speaking a language isn't a measure of its dominance. Spanish is spoken more than English because of its dominance in South America, but it is by no means anything like as dominant in a global context. The same with Chinese; it is growing in importance, but English is the lingua franca of the global community. There is no denying that, whether or not we like it.

gananam

katydid wrote: »

MOST do. You are at a serious disadvantage in these areas if you don't have a good working knowledge of spoken and written English.

I highly doubt it, and even if true, most is quite a way from all, as the poster claimed.

In any case, this is not relevant to the thread topic.

Iwasfrozen

ODEON123 wrote: »

You should probably learn a but more since English is the 3rd most spoken language in the world behind Chinese and Spanish please explain how it is the the language of internation culture blah blah blah, dont think it will become a dominant language since chinese is spoken by more then three times that of english so your argument isnt valid

Read what I wrote. Read what you're actually qoteing.

"English is the world's lingua fanca and the most learned second language."

Do you deny English is the word's most learned second language?

Chinese is not a global language and never will be. First off the number of foreigners learning Chinese as a second language is very small compared to English. It's a tonal language which makes it hard to learn as a second language as most languages are not tonal and it's writing system is largely incompatible with the much more widely understood Latin alphabet.

Chinese may be dominant in China but English is a truly open, universal and multi cultural language. Something Chinese (or Irish) will never be.

katydid

gananam wrote: »

I highly doubt it, and even if true, most is quite a way from all, as the poster claimed.

In any case, this is not relevant to the thread topic.

You can doubt all you like, but it is fact. It may not be all, but it certainly is most.

"It is the world's second largest native language, the official language in 70 countries, and English-speaking countries are responsible for about 40% of world's total GNP. "

http://www.omniglot.com/language/articles/engunilang.php


Whether or not it is relevant to this thread doesn't negate the fact that you are wrong

Iwasfrozen

gananam wrote: »

Sorry, but between your self and the supreme court, I think i'm going to trust the supreme court.
You can call you ill-informed opinion 'knowledge' if you want, but its not much to go by if you ask me.

The Supreme court cannot legislate against article 8.3 or rule in direct contradiction of legislation unless the legislation is in breach of the constitution. If the government were to enact legislation empowering article 8.3 to provide services only in English this would not be unconstitutional. Do you disagree?

False.

True. I can write one word responses too.

If you are claiming to ability to predict the future, then there is really no point talking to you. If someone predicted, centuries ago, that the Irish language was dyeing and yet it lives on today, its fairly safe to say that the person who maid the claim was wrong.

Oh, is there? You realize something can be dying for a very long time before it dies? Particularly language.

If a person said in the mid 19th century that Irish was dying they would be correct. They would also be correct pre WWI and post WWII and correct today.

Good question, I haven't been near A&E for years, I will have to ask them.

Do. And get back to me.

Who are you to tell me if my use of Irish in social contexts is 'forced'? The only language I was ever forced to speak is English.

I'm an observer. Do you disagree with my statement? Why?

English is the language of this country. Imagine going to Germany and complaining that the people speak German! Or more accurately, complaining that they don't provide you state services in Sorbian in Cologne.

Actually the English language has already started the process of falling apart. In another few hundred years there wont be an English language, just a family of languages that stem from English. That is part of the natural evolution of language, much the same thing happened to Latin.

I disagree. Latin deviated for a many number of social and technological issues that don't apply today. Today we can communicate to all corners o the world instantaneously. We're connected not only socially but politically and culturally, this is an environment that lends itself to unity and universalism, not the localism and tribalism that preceded and aggravated the fraction of Latin.

Thanks for confirming the intolerant nature of you beliefs. You might not think there is any room for my language or culture, but my culture and language are not going away.

Obviously I see you as the ignorant one. Over 3,500 languages expected to die over the next century? You think your language won't follow soon?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/world/18cnd-language.html?_r=0

On the other hand English is constantly changing and evolving as it absorbs words, phrases and customs of desperate groups of people. No other language is more diverse. English has 250,000 distinct words. How many does Irish have?

gananam

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Supreme court cannot legislate against article 8.3 or rule in direct contradiction of legislation unless the legislation is in breach of the constitution. If the government were to enact legislation empowering article 8.3 to provide services only in English this would not be unconstitutional. Do you disagree?

'If the government were to...' that is the key part of your post, the government has not, and we can be fairly confident that the government will not. If there government were ever foolish enough to try to make Irish a de facto unofficial language through legislation while it is still de jure an official language in the constitution, then it is almost certain that the Supreme Court would find that legislation unconstitutional despite article 8.3. Decisions on the constitution are not made based on one particular article without talking the rest of the constitution into account. Courts are very resistant to established rights being taken away and if the Government tried to withdraw Irish language rights, it would be simple enough to argue that such a move is repugnant to the spirit of the constitution, given the status of the language in the constitution.

This is a purely academic argument however, there is no legislation that seeks to cancel the language rights of Irish speakers. Irish speakers in today's Ireland have the right to access services in Irish. This is a simple fact.

Oh, is there? You realize something can be dying for a very long time before it dies? Particularly language.

Then you have a meaningless point, I can confidently predict that at some point in the future there will not be a single person alive that knows English, though it may well be centuries from now. You heard it here first folks, English is officially a dying language.

I'm an observer. Do you disagree with my statement? Why?

I find your statement to not be worth a response.

I disagree. Latin deviated for a many number of social and technological issues that don't apply today. Today we can communicate to all corners o the world instantaneously. We're connected not only socially but politically and culturally, this is an environment that lends itself to unity and universalism, not the localism and tribalism that preceded and aggravated the fraction of Latin.

I don't care if you agree or not, your opinion of the facts does not change the nature of those facts.

Obviously I see you as the ignorant one. Over 3,500 languages expected to die over the next century? You think your language won't follow soon?

That claim has been made, Irish wont be one of them. Might the Irish language die over the course of the coming centuries? Possibly, I'm not going to pointlessly engage in speculation on what will happen in a few hundred years time. I will be long dead and it wont concern me anyway.

ODEON123

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Read what I wrote. Read what you're actually qoteing.

"English is the world's lingua fanca and the most learned second language."

Do you deny English is the word's most learned second language?

Chinese is not a global language and never will be. First off the number of foreigners learning Chinese as a second language is very small compared to English. It's a tonal language which makes it hard to learn as a second language as most languages are not tonal and it's writing system is largely incompatible with the much more widely understood Latin alphabet.

Chinese may be dominant in China but English is a truly open, universal and multi cultural language. Something Chinese (or Irish) will never be.

Please explain how Chinese isnt a global language?

katydid

ODEON123 wrote: »

Please explain how Chinese isnt a global language?

Because it isn't the language of business, because English is much easier to learn and to use, and because it was initially spread throughout the world by the British empire.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

Because it isn't the language of business, because English is much easier to learn and to use, and because it was initially spread throughout the world by the British empire.

Actually English is not an easier or harder language to learn. It depends on where the speaker is coming from. If the speakers native language comes from a language related to English say German then it can be easier if however the speakers language is unrelated say Russian then it will be more difficult.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

Actually English is not an easier or harder language to learn. It depends on where the speaker is coming from. If the speakers native language comes from a language related to English say German then it can be easier if however the speakers language is unrelated say Russian then it will be more difficult.

I know what you mean, but I believe it's still easier in general, because it doesn't have genders and not much declensions, so no confusing articles or nouns, which is a huge barrier. Of course, it has a lot of irregular grammar, but that doesn't seem to bother people too much...