We must rid ourselves of our ludicrous language laws

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Shep_Dog

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The double-irony is that it is the influence of English-speakers in the Gaeltacht that is leading to a decline in the daily use of Irish there.

But it's not just short-term gains of money that the Conradh wants, I spotted this objective on their web site

"To call for names in Irish only for new state companies"

One might ask: Why?

golfball37

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The double-irony is that it is the influence of English-speakers in the Gaeltacht that is leading to a decline in the daily use of Irish there.

But it's not just short-term gains of money that the Conradh wants, I spotted this objective on their web site

"To call for names in Irish only for new state companies"

One might ask: Why?

Why not? All I'm reading here is the usual self loathing associated with anything indigenous to Ireland. Our language should be preserved at all costs otherwise whats the point of having borders or nationalities.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Shep_Dog

golfball37 wrote: »

Why not? All I'm reading here is the usual self loathing associated with anything indigenous to Ireland.

Or, more likely, a loathing of English. Surely the name of an organisation should reflect the culture of the majority of its customers? What next, will Conradh demand that every one's first-born be named in Irish?

golfball37 wrote: »

Our language should be preserved at all costs otherwise whats the point of having borders or nationalities.

What I'm reading here is a lack of self-confidence in the Irish identity, looking towards the comforting isolation offered by a language not comprehensible to outsiders.

Shep_Dog

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Conradh's mission is to make the 19th century cultural nationalist notion of Irish identity a reality by reinstating Irish as our common language. To do this, it needs to infiltrate the public administration by placing its people in positions of influence (such as education) and through the Official Languages Act.

Grudaire

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Some more generalisations that Irish is a backwards language. Usually you have more balance to your posts Permabear..

Irish has evolved immensely and is used daily in modern life. Some people see Irish as having a future as part of the Irish identity, others don't.

I don't see your opinion on Irish identity as any more or less valid then mine. Doesn't seem to be the case both ways.

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

You've linked to an article detailing an increase in Irish speakers as a failure for the Irish language!?

Shep_Dog

Grudaire wrote: »

Some more generalisations that Irish is a backwards language. Usually you have more balance to your posts Permabear..

It is a fact that Conradh's sole objective (to reinstate Irish as our common tongue) has not changed since it was founded in the 19th century. The idea of 'reinstatement' is clearly looking to go backwards to a past state that is considered preferable to that of the present.

It is 'An Conradh' that is backwards, not Irish.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Grudaire

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

If I was to begin referring back to historic figures who wanted otherwise I'd be labeled as living in the past, or a Shinner!

I feel as if this is a tangent that doesn't link to today's Irish Speakers, much like the anti foreign sports Celtic supporter.

Irish has moved on.

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Statistics can be cut several ways. Irish is coming from a low base, and there's added complication with immigration. I don't see those statistics as proof of the death or resurrection of the language, but it's clearly not all bad for the language.
Be careful of confirmation bias, you seem to be looking for proof of your own conclusion.

Look around at Vicipéid, Na Gael Óga (Gaa team in Dublin), and Radio Na Life. There's plenty of successful modern Irish speaking communities if you go looking.

Shep_Dog

Grudaire wrote: »

I feel as if this is a tangent that doesn't link to today's Irish Speakers,
...Irish has moved on.

Yet, they are represented by an organisation, Conradh Na Gaeilge, which was founded in the 19th century and which still has the same mission that it had then: the Reinstatement of Irish as The Common Language of Ireland.

The PR might be slicker: the press releases refer to 'Language Rights' and the 'Promotion of Irish'. 'de-Anglicisation' is no longer mentioned, nor is the main aim of restoration of Irish but, the fundamental polices of An Conradh: reinstatement of Irish and coercion of English speakers have not changed at all.

A man from Aran, giving evidence to Coimisiún na Gaeltachta in 1926 had this to say: "It is only them with plenty English who are bothered about Irish".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JacquesSon

As much as I hated spending time learning it, being able to understand and speak Irish is something I'm very proud of, and I'm sure there'd be many more arguments in it's favour if it wasn't a compulsory part of Irish society.

It may be expensive and irrelevant for some but so is the Book of Kells.

There's not much to distinguish the modern Irish as a separate people from any other semi-prosperous part of the Western World, apart from the occasional blast of Gaelic when it suits us.

Gaelige is a national treasure everyone gets for free.

Shep_Dog

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The dilemma for the government is that if it directly goes against the demands of 'An Conradh', it will swing its supporters to Sinn Fein, which is very supportive of An Conradh's cultural plans for the Irish population.

Given An Conradh's interference in political matters, there are strong grounds for banning membership of that organisation among public servants, most especially: teachers.

Grudaire

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Permabear, you're willfully ignoring the fact that this is not an issue with Irish language legislation, but is a problem with how it has been interpreted.

It's a technicality that I think you'd even admit was never the intention of any Gaelgeoir.

Grudaire wrote:

Just to be clear the law does not require every service to be supplied in both languages - a quick look at any government (particularly local government) website would make that clear.

What has happened here is that the traffic law was written poorly so that a system that can provide English OR Irish statements was written into law requiring both English AND Irish statements. The OLA however was not the problem but the interpretation was.

BoJack Horseman

JacquesSon wrote: »

It may be expensive and irrelevant for some but so is the Book of Kells.

How much did the taxpayer kick in to the making of the Book of Kells?

Hotblack Desiato

JacquesSon wrote: »

Gaelige is a national treasure everyone gets for free.

Over a billion a year to teach Irish, according to Dr Ed Walsh http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/finding-the-muscle-to-fix-our-failing-education-system-1.1279339

School language policy needs revision and a phased reallocation of part of the €1 billion committed each year to teaching Irish is a good place to start.

That's not counting TG4, OLA, grants etc. etc.

Jim2007

golfball37 wrote: »

If people don't like the Irish language and only want to live in a country where English predominates then they should move to the UK or Australia etc.

I am fairly lapsed on the cupla focail but I'd be damned if we should ever give up on it.

Other way round: You are free to speak a minority language to your heart's content, but don't expect the majority to go out of their way to accommodate you!

Shep_Dog

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

How much did the taxpayer kick in to the making of the Book of Kells?

And it's not even written in Irish.

Grudaire

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Over a billion a year to teach Irish, according to Dr Ed Walsh

If i recall correctly that figure is a simple calculation of total costs divided by number of subjects.

ie stopping teaching Irish would not save €1bn, a huge amount of this cost is fixed - buildings, maintenance, etc that will exist of you have one out twenty subjects.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Grudaire

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Agreed. Although presumably there would be a chance to teach another subject, not multiple ones!

Sad to see you thank a factually incorrect post..

Shep_Dog

Grudaire wrote: »

If i recall correctly that figure is a simple calculation of total costs divided by number of subjects.

ie stopping teaching Irish would not save €1bn, a huge amount of this cost is fixed - buildings, maintenance, etc that will exist of you have one out twenty subjects.

The true cost should not be measured in financial terms but in the moral cost to Irish culture of the coercive regime. Dropping compulsory Irish would not only be a vindication of the language rights of English speaking families but it would weaken the power of An Conradh, an organisation which is a vestige of 19th century ultra-nationalist ideology.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

golfball37 wrote: »

Why not? All I'm reading here is the usual self loathing associated with anything indigenous to Ireland. Our language should be preserved at all costs otherwise whats the point of having borders or nationalities.

Then you haven't been reading the thread. Not only has there been little or no "self-loathing", there have been a few posts saying that calling for s change in the law does not equate to a dislike for the language! Find me ine person who said the language should NOT be preserved on this thread. Is there a point to nationality? Honest not sure on that one, as it does nothing but obstruct the discovery of the self.

Anyway, in answer to your question, it's becayse the Official Langages Act requires them to be identifiable in both official State languages.

Jim2007

golfball37 wrote: »

Why not? All I'm reading here is the usual self loathing associated with anything indigenous to Ireland. Our language should be preserved at all costs otherwise whats the point of having borders or nationalities.

The only self loathing around here is from people who are unwilling to see that English is our language, we have made it our language and that is a fact. And almost a 100 years of trying to change that has had no effect.

As for borders and nationalities, I'll grant you that language is an important part of that, but it is far from one language equals one nation. German is spoke by Germany, Austria, Switzerland, part of France and Italy for instance, while French is spoke in France, Belgium and Switzerland to mention a few. So it is most definitely not THE defining characteristic!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

Grudaire wrote: »

Agreed. Although presumably there would be a chance to teach another subject, not multiple ones!

Sad to see you thank a factually incorrect post..

What is factually inaccurate? Are you claiming I faked up an article on the Irish Times website, and Dr Walsh never made these claims?

Now if you're disputing his claims please provide a basis for doing so. "We have to pay much of these costs anyway" doesn't cut it, as we could be using valuable class time for other things instead. Same goes for religion.

Head The Wall

JacquesSon wrote: »

Gaelige is a national treasure everyone gets for free.

I don't class having 25% of my class time in primary school wasted on Irish and religion as free, I think it costs us dearly. Where else in the world will people spend over a decade learning a language and then not be fluent in it, they have it all wrong.

I know when I was young it was a waste and that has borne true

The Black Oil

It's not 'self-loathing' to be sceptical and ask if we can do things differently. This is not intolerance towards the language.