Stormont power sharing talks

blanch152

LeinsterDub wrote: »

As I said it's understandable but there is are also a large amount of words not used in Standard English. Some have claimed Scots is language others a dialect . Is Portuguese just a dialect of Spanish? Scots Gaelic a dialect of Irish?

Very good question. Most Spaniards can understand Catalan, does that make Catalan a dialect? It is very difficult to distinguish a dialect from a language.

An interesting link I pointed out earlier in this thread was to the effect that Ulster Irish actually became extinct sometime in the 1970s.

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

The Irish spoken today in Northern Ireland is a purely artificial importation of mostly Donegal Irish. In that way - being seen as an artificial resurrection of a dead language - it actually shares many characteristics of Ulster Scots.

Junkyard Tom

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Some have claimed Scots is language others a dialect .

As I said it's more like a thick country accent in the north. I'm not sure what you'd call it but it's not a langauge.

Is Portuguese just a dialect of Spanish?

I don't know, thought they were different languages.

Scots Gaelic a dialect of Irish?

Haven't a clue.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Given the tiny numbers involved, any form of Language Act is a waste of money.

It is 100% tied up in political symbolism with SF trying to get one-up on the Unionist community. It is quite frankly tiresome and tedious. If that part of the UK is ever to achieve normality it must be on the basis of mutual recognition of each others' heritage, however small or inconsequential the other side views the particular heritage.

Ulster Scots has acquired cultural meaning for part of the Unionist community and therefore requires recognition on the same basis as Irish. Anything else is just a continuation of the endless getting one up on the other side nonsense.

Nobody objects to Ulster Scots being recognised though. Their heritage is therefore recognised.

It can have it's own recognition if anyone wants to propose a Language act for it.

And of course it is a 'political thing' as well as being a cultural thing to want a separate standalone Irish Language Act. One has to say to your objection on those grounds - so what?

How much of what goes on in any normal society is 'political'? There is nothing abnormal about it, that is why it was agreed to at St. Andrews by the British.

It is typical that somebody who is politically opposed to anything required by a section of society would raise that old chestnut...i.e. 'it's POLITICAL!!

As to the money argument, you could have that objection to anything you are against or opposed to. It is of no significance really.

LeinsterDub

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As I said it's more like a thick country accent in the north. I'm not sure what you'd call it but it's not a langauge.


I don't know, thought they were different languages.


Haven't a clue.

Considering this a language debate maybe you should form an opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP-PV9ryXM4

This video may help

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody objects to Ulster Scots being recognised though. Their heritage is therefore recognised.

It can have it's own recognition if anyone wants to propose a Language act for it.

And of course it is a 'political thing' as well as being a cultural thing to want a separate standalone Irish Language Act. One has to say to your objection on those grounds - so what?

How much of what goes on in any normal society is 'political'? There is nothing abnormal about it, that is why it was agreed to at St. Andrews by the British.

It is typical that somebody who is politically opposed to anything required by a section of society would raise that old chestnut...i.e. 'it's POLITICAL!!

As to the money argument, you could have that objection to anything you are against or opposed to. It is of no significance really.

Equal and mutual recognition is the key. A Languages Act that mutually recognises the importance to each community of their traditional artificially created/imported language is the solution.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Equal and mutual recognition is the key. A Languages Act that mutually recognises the importance to each community of their traditional artificially created/imported language is the solution.

Fulfilling the terms of an agreement that has already been reached (without anybody mentioning Ulster Scots btw) is the 'solution'.

As well as recognising all the other rights still blocked by the religious supremacy and cultural bigotry of the DUP. Ask any other party other than SF about that.

Chips Lovell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

However, in passing judgement, it is important that you understand the difference between a language and a dialect.

Oh I'm aware of the distinction alright. But given the tiny number of speakers of each, that distinction is academic in more ways than one

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Is Portuguese just a dialect of Spanish?

Or is Gallego a dialect of Portuguese? If you think Northern Ireland is bad, you should spend some time in Spain. There's hardly a region there where you can't have a blazing row about languages/dialects

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fulfilling the terms of an agreement that has already been reached (without anybody mentioning Ulster Scots btw) is the 'solution'.

Except, as has been shown, no agreement was ever reached with the DUP. Understandably, having been left out of those negotiations, they are bringing their own take on it to the table which is fair enough.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As well as recognising all the other rights still blocked by the religious supremacy and cultural bigotry of the DUP. Ask any other party other than SF about that.

Can you give me other examples of the cultural bigotry of the DUP?

Are they selling terrorist badges on their website for example?

http://www.sinnfeinbookshop.com/belfast-brigade-2nd-bn-d-company-badge/

Makes complaints about 12th of July bonfires look hypocritical to say the least.

Junkyard Tom

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Considering this a language debate maybe you should form an opinion.

It's supposed to be about Stormont power sharing.

This video may help

It's exactly as I suspected it would be and could be summarised in two words 'It's* complicated'.

Nae, away up thon brae wi'ye ye thran skitter.



*The more pedantic among us might consider 'it's' as two words.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Nae, away up thon brae wi'ye ye thran skitter.

No, away........

the rest I don't understand.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Except, as has been shown, no agreement was ever reached with the DUP. Understandably, having been left out of those negotiations, they are bringing their own take on it to the table which is fair enough.

Who was left out of the negotiations? The DUP were there.
But SF and the DUP had expressed reservations but eventually accepted the agreement and formed an executive on the basis of it.

Can SF row back on their commitments to the Police Service undertaken under the Agreement?
Why is it ok for the DUP to row back on commitments to a language act contained in the agreement or to cherrypick from it?

Can you give me other examples of the cultural bigotry of the DUP?

Are they selling terrorist badges on their website for example?

http://www.sinnfeinbookshop.com/belfast-brigade-2nd-bn-d-company-badge/

Makes complaints about 12th of July bonfires look hypocritical to say the least.

The Flag issue, the Marching issue, ongoing belittlement of the Irish language in the Executive, belligerence towards the agreed role of the Irish government etc etc. I could go on. But all the above is based in cultural bigotry.


SF do not see people who fought in the IRA as 'terrorists', they see them as members of an army in a conflict that is over.

Personally I would like to see memorials/tributes to anyone who used violence banned but that isn't going to happen on either side.

Professor Moriarty

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Oh I'm aware of the distinction alright. But given the tiny number of speakers of each, that distinction is academic in more ways than one

Like I said, you do not believe in state intervention regarding endangered languages. So from your perspective they may both be irrelevant and with a wave of your hand dismiss them both as being one and the same. That's fine, but for those who disagree with your perspective, including the Irish government and the EU, it is far from being academic.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

No, away........

the rest I don't understand.

Now, away up thon (the yonder) brae (hill/incline) wi (with) ye (you) thran (stubborn/obstinate) skitter (scamp/imp).

That's about as concentrated a sentence you could get using Ulster Scots words that would puzzle those unfamiliar with it.

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Bergs, Alexander (2001). "Modern Scots". Languages of the World. Bow Historical Books. 242: 4. Scots developed out of a mixture of Scandinavianised Northern English during the early Middle English period
Jump up ^ Bergs, Alexander (2001). "Modern Scots". Languages of the World. Bow Historical Books. 242: 50. Scots originated as one form of Northern Old English and quickly developed into a language in its own right up to the seventeenth century
Jump up ^ Sandred, Karl Inge (1983). "Good or Bad Scots?: Attitudes to Optional Lexical and Grammatical Usages in Edinburgh". ACTA Universitatis Upsaliensis. Ubsaliensis S. Academiae. 48: 13. ISBN 9789155414429. Whereas Modern Standard English is traced back to an East Midland dialect of Middle English, Modern Scots developed from a northern variety which goes back to Old Northumbrian

Anyway I'm not here to defend (Ulster) Scots was just pointing out that what is and isn't a Language isn't clear .

Sorry, but are you sure Bergs and Sandred stated categorically that Ulster Scots is a language? I can't find any reference to either of them defining Ulster Scots as a distinct language.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Very good question. Most Spaniards can understand Catalan, does that make Catalan a dialect? It is very difficult to distinguish a dialect from a language.

An interesting link I pointed out earlier in this thread was to the effect that Ulster Irish actually became extinct sometime in the 1970s.

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

The Irish spoken today in Northern Ireland is a purely artificial importation of mostly Donegal Irish. In that way - being seen as an artificial resurrection of a dead language - it actually shares many characteristics of Ulster Scots.

Apart from the fact it's not a language. Have you any papers detailing whether it's a language? I have a few.

LeinsterDub

steddyeddy wrote: »

Apart from the fact it's not a language. Have you any papers detailing whether it's a language? I have a few.

There is an entire wiki article with references that call it a language

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

Apart from the fact it's not a language. Have you any papers detailing whether it's a language? I have a few.

Whether it's a language or not isn't the issue.
The issue is the DUP cherrypicking from previously made agreements and also denying again and again rights that are available to everyone else in the UK and Ireland.

This has been going on since the GFA and the time has come, either separate church and state and allow parity of esteem and the rights of those who identify as Irish or forget about an Executive.

The two governments have to intervene here and make sure that agreements are met and the situation does not stagnate.

McMurphy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

There is an entire wiki article with references that call it a language

Wikipeida.

You realise it's open to anyone to read, create and edit pages as they see fit.

I think we can dismiss wikipeida as a reliable source.

LeinsterDub

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Wikipeida.

You realise it's open to anyone to read, create and edit pages as they see fit.

I think we can dismiss wikipeida as a reliable source.

Just as night follows day. You mention Wikipedia and someone dismisses it out of hand. The article is full of references too which I was at pains to point out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia the irony of using Wikipedia to prove how creditable Wikipedia is is not lost on me but if you're unwilling to accept that just pretend I posted nearly 300 references instead.

Chips Lovell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Like I said, you do not believe in state intervention regarding endangered languages. So from your perspective they may both be irrelevant and with a wave of your hand dismiss them both as being one and the same. That's fine, but for those who disagree with your perspective, including the Irish government and the EU, it is far from being academic.

I don't think either party is genuinely interested in preserving endangered languages or dialects. Instead it's more about finding an issue to antagonise each other. Do you honestly think that if the positions were reversed (i.e. if the DUP were aligned with a language and SF with a dialect) they wouldn't be having the exact same row, the only difference being that the arguments would be made by opposite sides, with SF arguing for parity between the two and the DUP saying it isn't a real language etc.?

McMurphy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Just as night follows day. You mention Wikipedia and someone dismisses it out of hand. The article is full of references too which I was at pains to point out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia the irony of using Wikipedia to prove how creditable Wikipedia is is not lost on me but if you're unwilling to accept that just pretend I posted nearly 300 references instead.

Wikipedia article about Ulster Scots claims it is a dialect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Scots

A dialect is not a language, it's as simple as that.

tomwaterford

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Wikipeida.

You realise it's open to anyone to read, create and edit pages as they see fit.

I think we can dismiss wikipeida as a reliable source.

It's not as easy to edit as you imagine,more widely read page more scuriteny required

This notion that you can rock onto any Wikipedia page and edit it is baffling in the extreme




To make an example,try change the Kim Kardashian page to say she married Irish person called Rick Shaw in 2016 and see how long it takes to get changed

LeinsterDub

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Wikipedia article about Ulster Scots claims it is a dialect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Scots

A dialect is not a language, it's as simple as that.

Maybe read past the first line it's a dialect of Scots . Which is a language

McMurphy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Maybe read past the first line it's a dialect of Scots . Which is a language

I am not too fussed about arguing this back and forth all night, but if you're now saying that Ulster Scots is a dialect of Scots, then that answers your own argument, no?

LeinsterDub

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I am not too fussed about arguing this back and forth all night, but if you're now saying that Ulster Scots is a dialect of Scots, then that answers your own argument, no?

I thought everyone was aware of the fact it's a dialect of Scots? What's your point? I thought your point was it was just English with an accent?

steddyeddy

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I don't think either party is genuinely interested in preserving endangered languages or dialects. Instead it's more about finding an issue to antagonise each other. Do you honestly think that if the positions were reversed (i.e. if the DUP were aligned with a language and SF with a dialect) they wouldn't be having the exact same row, the only difference being that the arguments would be made by opposite sides, with SF arguing for parity between the two and the DUP saying it isn't a real language etc.?

You see it isn't just SF pushing an Irish language act. It's the SDLP and Alliance. As Naomi Long said there's very few cases where the native language of a country doesn't have protection.

FrancieBrady

Ian Paisley, former leader of the DUP wrote to object to an Irish Language act in 2007 and never once mentioned 'Ulster Scots', preferring instead to claim it would be politically divisive and "sponsored by Sinn Féin".
This is despite the fact that the other parties in the Assembly agree n this.

That is the issue. Nothing more than cultural bigotry and the Never Never Never culture of the DUP.

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/2007-September/005523.html

Professor Moriarty

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I don't think either party is genuinely interested in preserving endangered languages or dialects. Instead it's more about finding an issue to antagonise each other. Do you honestly think that if the positions were reversed (i.e. if the DUP were aligned with a language and SF with a dialect) they wouldn't be having the exact same row, the only difference being that the arguments would be made by opposite sides, with SF arguing for parity between the two and the DUP saying it isn't a real language etc.?

No. In this instance I do believe that, rightly, SF are fighting to preserve the language. The whole Ulster Scots issue is a red herring. There are lots of other issues that each side can use to antagonise. This is simply petty malice on the part of the DUP. Even if you were right, and SF would do the same, it doesn't excuse what the DUP is doing.

FrancieBrady

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. In this instance I do believe that, rightly, SF are fighting to preserve the language. The whole Ulster Scots issue is a red herring. There are lots of other issues that each side can use to antagonise. This is simply petty malice on the part of the DUP. Even if you were right, and SF would do the same, it doesn't excuse what the DUP is doing.

Correct, the old objection of unionists, that it would be a capitulation to SF and must be rejected for that reason shows anyone with their eyes open what this is.
The Ulster Scots stuff was invented in an effort to bring respectability to plain and blatant cultural bigotry.
A standalone Ulster-Scots Act would not solve this, because it's the last stand of a dying ideology

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Correct, the old objection of unionists, that it would be a capitulation to SF and must be rejected for that reason shows anyone with their eyes open what this is.

It's a blatant attempt to prevent the 'greening' of the north and a general neuroticism about anything that makes the northeast of Ireland more like the rest of the island and less like Finchley.

Also, Arlene's 'if you feed a crocodile' statement provides us with a little insight to the Unionist mindset. They still believe they own/control 'the food' and will share it out however they damn please.