Irish Language Act in the North: Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal?

blanch152

recedite wrote: »

No, but if the local authority votes to erect some signs in Breton, that is local democracy in action. Its not the same as a requirement to translate all national signs and publications, such as we have here in RoI.
Or a requirement for any child attending a state school to learn Breton.
We don't know exactly what the shinner proposal was, because its all a big secret.

I have asked on here several times and nobody seems to know.

I have also asked for personal views as to what an ILA should contain and nobody seems to have any bar the odd exception.

All very strange and secret.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

No, but if the local authority votes to erect some signs in Breton, that is local democracy in action. Its not the same as a requirement to translate all national signs and publications, such as we have here in RoI.
Or a requirement for any child attending a state school to learn Breton.

Yes. Well, unless you abolish or amend the constitution then I'm afraid you're stuck with Irish being the official language. This feeds into our road signage and education.

charlie14

Edward M wrote: »

I figured that anyway tbh Francie, but why not put out the other reasons?
I'd be thinking that even if the ILA was agreed on something else would come up.

From media reports there does not appear to have been any other reason for the reject of the draft agreed by Foster other than the 10 DUP MP`s abroad in Westminster objecting and Foster caving in to them.
Sounds plausible to me because I cannot see why May and Varadkar would have turned up unless they believed an agreement was about to be announced, but like yourself I`d be off the opinion if it wasn`t the ILA the 10 abroad would have found another reason.

recedite

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes. Well, unless you abolish or amend the constitution then I'm afraid you're stuck with Irish being the official language. This feeds into our road signage and education.

This is true. And you have to admit, the unionists would have to be absolutely mad to let something similar happen up there.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I have asked on here several times and nobody seems to know.

I have also asked for personal views as to what an ILA should contain and nobody seems to have any bar the odd exception.

All very strange and secret.

You have asked and been told by numerous posters that your personal view or theirs as to what an ILA should or should not contain is totally irrelevant.

Banging on about it in the manner of a Lambeg drum on the 12th of July is not going to change that.
Rather than looking for rabbit holes and expecting to be to be followed down into, lets stick to areas relevant to this thread title shall we ?

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

This is true. And you have to admit, the unionists would have to be absolutely mad to let something similar happen up there.

You seriously think dual road signage is such a terrible thing?

I have only ever heard people remark on how nice it was to see the Irish name for places. I have never heard of anyone complaining about them.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

This is true. And you have to admit, the unionists would have to be absolutely mad to let something similar happen up there.

Well they were never that absolutely mad on the democratic principle, so I can see why you would believe that. .

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

This is true. And you have to admit, the unionists would have to be absolutely mad to let something similar happen up there.

Well, there isn't a constitution for a start. However, it's like I posted earlier, you could make a cogent argument for and against an ILA. Essentially, this is what it would mean:

The use of Irish in courts, in the Assembly and for use by state bodies including the police
The appointment of an Irish language commissioner
The establishment of designated Gaelteacht areas in the North
The right for education through Irish
Bilingual signage on public buildings and road signage

So, you could argue that this would be the recognition and reinstatement of an important element of Irish culture. Or you could say that there is no need to waste money on a dead language. There appears to be no middle ground or compromise, especially as the majority of DUP voters are against an ILA.

McMurphy

recedite wrote: »

I do not, and hopefully it will stay that way.
.

Stopped reading after that bit.

You have been inventing arguments that weren't ever made, envisioning scenarios that won't ever happen, or - strawman arguments.

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You seriously think dual road signage is such a terrible thing?

I have only ever heard people remark on how nice it was to see the Irish name for places. I have never heard of anyone complaining about them.

There was some controversy over the use of Irish only signs a few years ago, I think it was in Gaeltacht areas, maybe not them all, but Dingle stands out in my mind from it.
Tourists were having great difficulty finding it I think from the signs.
There's nothing wrong with having both on them, as you say, it can even be nice to see the Irish name for a town or place. Even guessing how they got their names, a bit of local history in most of them.

Infini

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes. Well, unless you abolish or amend the constitution then I'm afraid you're stuck with Irish being the official language. This feeds into our road signage and education.

Never had an issue with Irish being the official language if anything the only fault I would find is that Irish the lesser spoken and used language is given prominence over English which is the wider spoken language.

FrancieBrady

Edward M wrote: »

There was some controversy over the use of Irish only signs a few years ago, I think it was in Gaeltacht areas, maybe not them all, but Dingle stands out in my mind from it.
Tourists were having great difficulty finding it I think from the signs.
There's nothing wrong with having both on them, as you say, it can even be nice to see the Irish name for a town or place. Even guessing how they got their names, a bit of local history in most of them.

Well a huge part of our history is how the names were Anglicised and that should not be forgotten.
The sometimes brutal contrast between the poetic native names for places and the cold and unconnected names they ended up with is also good to see.

Professor Moriarty

Infini wrote: »

Never had an issue with Irish being the official language if anything the only fault I would find is that Irish the lesser spoken and used language is given prominence over English which is the wider spoken language.

Which is a naural consequence of it being the first language. The costs and minor inconveniences associated with promoting a core element of national identity are far outweighed by the benefits. If we lose Irish as part of who we are then we will be as distinct from England as Cornwall. All you have to do is remove Irish and what will be left is quirky sounding English names.Much like many Irish surnames.

Chips Lovell

That's hardly the case. There are a lot of English speaking countries that have quite distinct identities from England. United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

Our national identity is not language dependent.

Professor Moriarty

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

That's hardly the case. There are a lot of English speaking countries that have quite distinct identities from England. United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

Our national identity is not language dependent.

I would disagree completely. For many thousands of years until very recently, Irish was the predominant and indigenous language. The countries you refer to, small minorities apart, have colonist populations as a vast majority. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Chips Lovell

They're hardly colonists. There are multiple generations of English speakers there now.

Ditto for Scotland and Wales. Virtually everyone in Scotland speaks only English and most people in Wales. But nobody regards them as indistinguishable from the English, even though they're part of the same country.

Professor Moriarty

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

They're hardly colonists. There are multiple generations of English speakers there now.

Ditto for Scotland and Wales. Virtually everyone in Scotland speaks only English and most people in Wales. But nobody regards them as indistinguishable from the English, even though they're part of the same country.

I think you're missing my point about colonists.

No. A lot of people abroad have very vague notions of Scottishness and Welshness. To most, they are British.

Scots Gaelic hasn't been predominant in Scotland for over a thousand years and even at that was restricted to parts of Scotland. Scotland was also an independent country for much longer than Ireland.

Welsh is still an integral part of what is left of Welsh culture and is very much supported by the UK government. If you took Welsh away from wales it would be indistinguishable.

At least when people across the world look at a map, they can see a sovereign country called Ireland with its own culture of which Irish is an integral part.

jm08

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

That's hardly the case. There are a lot of English speaking countries that have quite distinct identities from England. United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

Our national identity is not language dependent.

All those countries have indigenous identities which make them unique from each other - Maori, Aborigines, Native American Indians etc. The Kiwis are one of the few countries that seem to be proud of their Maori heritage.

English is a shared language, its not ours.

Edward M

jm08 wrote: »

All those countries have indigenous identities which make them unique from each other - Maori, Aborigines, Native American Indians etc. The Kiwis are one of the few countries that seem to be proud of their Maori heritage.

English is a shared language, its not ours.

But it is ours, its not our original or native language, but if tomoro you decided that Irish was to be our first language you'd have to send 90%+ back to school.
English, whethere we like it or not, is in terms of now, our native tongue, in that I mean we are classed as an English speaking country.
We even sell it as such to potential investors and customers.

Chips Lovell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think you're missing my point about colonists.

No. A lot of people abroad have very vague notions of Scottishness and Welshness. To most, they are British.

Scots Gaelic hasn't been predominant in Scotland for over a thousand years and even at that was restricted to parts of Scotland. Scotland was also an independent country for much longer than Ireland.

Welsh is still an integral part of what is left of Welsh culture and is very much supported by the UK government. If you took Welsh away from wales it would be indistinguishable.

At least when people across the world look at a map, they can see a sovereign country called Ireland with its own culture of which Irish is an integral part.

But lots of people can get confused and mistake Swiss people for French or Austrians for Germans. That doesn't negate the fact when people across the world look at a map, they can see sovereign countries with their own cultures.

Professor Moriarty

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

But lots of people can get confused and mistake Swiss people for French or Austrians for Germans. That doesn't negate the fact when people across the world look at a map, they can see sovereign countries with their own cultures.

I'm not sure what your point is about Switzerland in the context of Ireland? There is no such language as Swiss. How does it support your point about Scotland and Wales?

Professor Moriarty

Edward M wrote: »

But it is ours, its not our original or native language, but if tomoro you decided that Irish was to be our first language you'd have to send 90%+ back to school.
English, whethere we like it or not, is in terms of now, our native tongue, in that I mean we are classed as an English speaking country.
We even sell it as such to potential investors and customers.

A positive by-product of teaching Irish as a core subject is that numerous studies have shown that children who are bilingual from an early age have better attention focus and cognition than children who are monolingual. Naturally, the argument could be made that the 'other' language should be e.g. French but, personally, I'm happy that it's our indigenous language.

Chips Lovell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is about Switzerland in the context of Ireland?

Simply put, having a distinct national identity is not tied to having a distinct language, and there's precedent for that the world over.

Professor Moriarty

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Simply put, having a distinct national identity is not tied to having a distinct language, and there's precedent for that the world over.

Only if you don't have an indigenous language in the first place. If you have an indigenous language, you would be very foolish to discard it. It is nonsensical to argue that a language is of no relevance to national identity or culture.

Chips Lovell

But we're at the stage now where English pretty much is our indigenous language and Irish is the language essentially being thought as a second language.

There are very, very few people whose parents, grandparents, great-grandparents or even great-great grandparents spoke Irish as a first language.

Edward M

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A positive by-product of teaching Irish as a core subject is that numerous studies have shown that children who are bilingual from an early age have better attention focus and cognition than children who are monolingual. Naturally, the argument could be made that the 'other' language should be e.g. French but, personally, I'm happy that it's our indigenous language.

I am too, indeed its only right and proper to promote and use it where possible.
I think if the DUP took their own sides history into account, it is a fundamental part of Ulster history, and denying their roots won't change their evolvement in to what they now are either.
I think their is a problem with them and those they claim to represent with recognising that.
I think they view it as any allowing a recognition of it as a dilution of their status as British subjects.

jimmycrackcorm

Baron de Charlus wrote:

But we're at the stage now where English pretty much is our indigenous language and Irish is the language essentially being thought as a second language.

My kids go to a Gaelscoil so I'd pretty much disagree with that.

Professor Moriarty

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

But we're at the stage now where English pretty much is our indigenous language and Irish is the language essentially being thought as a second language.

There are very, very few people whose parents, grandparents, great-grandparents or even great-great grandparents spoke Irish as a first language.

That would depend on what age you are. If you are a child then yes, very probably. If you are elderly, then no.

I'm not going to get into a semantic argument, but English is not our indigenous language by definition.

It boils down to this. Either a person sees Irish as an integral element of their national identity or they don't. I happen to think there a multitude of reasons why it should be maintained and promoted as part of our national identity. Others don't. I don't think I'll change their mindset and vice versa.

Regarding the DUP, it is unfortunately quixotic to think that their stance on Irish and the ILA will change any time soon. Irresistible forces and immovable objects spring to mind.

FrancieBrady

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That would depend on what age you are. If you are a child then yes, very probably. If you are elderly, then no.

I'm not going to get into a semantic argument, but English is not our indigenous language by definition.

It boils down to this. Either a person sees Irish as an integral element of their national identity or they don't. I happen to think there a multitude of reasons why it should be maintained and promoted as part of our national identity. Others don't. I don't think I'll change their mindset and vice versa.

Regarding the DUP, it is unfortunately quixotic to think that their stance on Irish and the ILA will change any time soon. Irresistible forces and immovable objects spring to mind.

Irish is an integral part of how we have adapted and used English.
The two are inextricably linked to each other.

Professor Moriarty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Irish is an integral part of how we have adapted and used English.
The two are inextricably linked to each other.

But Irish was there first and for very much longer. Not least because it is a much older language anyway.