Is it no really time to assess how much the irish language costs us all?

Permabear · 19-10-2009 04:17PM

This post has been deleted.

LordSutch · 19-10-2009 04:24PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here here, but dare I say its ironic that if were were still in the UK, then the Irish language might indeed be flourishing 'ala' the current Welsh language revival (which is also within the cosmopolitan Anglosphere)!

RedPlanet · 19-10-2009 04:37PM

The Census figures are a joke. I personally know friends that would tick the box that they speak Irish despite i've never heard them utter a word. They just do it from a weird sense of guilt i presume.

Regardless, i'd like to see statistics on the percentage of times the Gaeilge option is chosen on the local cash machine...
This would probably be a better indicator on everyday use of the language.
And it's probably data that is already collected.

LordSutch · 19-10-2009 04:43PM

RedPlanet wrote: »

i'd like to see statistics on the percentage of times the Gaeilge option is chosen on the local cash machine...

Good point that.

The Corinthian · 19-10-2009 04:45PM

RedPlanet wrote: »

Regardless, i'd like to see statistics on the percentage of times the Gaeilge option is chosen on the local cash machine...

Not really. The user interface on ATM's is carefully designed. For example, most people are right handed and thus, where the response buttons are on either side of the screen, will favour whatever is on the right hand side - hence when asked if you want a printed receipt the 'yes' button will tend to be on the left hand side, thus discouraging print outs.

If I remember correctly, the Irish option is also on the left hand side, so as a result any data would be affected by the propensity for right handed people to pick the closest button, regardless of language preference.

If you reversed the sides and forced people to go out of their way to choose English, you would get a far more accurate result.

thebman · 19-10-2009 04:52PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really. The user interface on ATM's is carefully designed. For example, most people are right handed and thus, where the response buttons are on either side of the screen, will favour whatever is on the right hand side - hence when asked if you want a printed receipt the 'yes' button will tend to be on the left hand side, thus discouraging print outs.

If I remember correctly, the Irish option is also on the left hand side, so as a result any data would be affected by the propensity for right handed people to pick the closest button, regardless of language preference.

If you reversed the sides and forced people to go out of their way to choose English, you would get a far more accurate result.

I think it is AIB ATM's where both options have the languages assigned to buttons on the right.

Not sure though and don't know the other banks layout either. I just know I've seen it with languages both on same side, there are 4 buttons so no reason to assume all Irish speakers are lefties :P

RedPlanet · 19-10-2009 04:56PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you reversed the sides and forced people to go out of their way to choose English, you would get a far more accurate result.

Fair enough.

Obviously the non-irish speakers will choose the english option regardless.
So it's really only the number of Irish speakers that are selecting the English option out of laziness/convenience that is the concern here.

Nevertheless the statistics will demonstrate the absurdity of having the 2 options.

T runner · 19-10-2009 05:09PM

starbelgrade wrote: »

I am completely in two minds about this whole debate & am open to both sides of the argument. I have asked some questions in a hope to get other peoples opinions, but I have never once argued that majority should rule on this or any other issue, so please read what I write before attributing arguments to me.

I did read it. Moving on now.

thebman · 19-10-2009 05:14PM

T runner wrote: »

Yes you have. You questioned why we should spend money on Irish when most of the schoolkids didnt want to learn it.

You argued that funding for Irish should be discontinued because a majority didnt want it. Should we therefore discontinue funds for Immobility issues if a majority dont want it? Different topics but same type of ugly majority argument can be applied to both.

Most people support disabled peoples rights to access buildings/transport though

They can't stop being disabled, Irish people can learn English and probably already speak it. The two things can't be compared at all. Just using disabled people for shock value IMO which is kind of disrespectful.

daithicarr · 19-10-2009 05:15PM

T runner wrote: »

You argued that funding for Irish should be discontinued because a majority didnt want it. Should we therefore discontinue funds for Immobility issues if a majority dont want it? Different topics but same type of ugly majority argument can be applied to both.

no one can provide anything to indicate the majority dont want it, not the slightest shred of evidence so far

Permabear · 19-10-2009 05:19PM

This post has been deleted.

murphaph · 19-10-2009 05:28PM

daithicarr wrote: »

no one can provide anything to indicate the majority dont want it, not the slightest shred of evidence so far

How about the fact that fcuk all people actually speak it. I can't remember the last time I heard a conversation in Irish on the street.

the_syco · 19-10-2009 05:30PM

lmimmfn wrote: »

no,i did read it, i do care about wastage

Me, I stopped reading there.

=-=

The english killed off the Irish language. The was we were taught in our schools was something a group of people (An Athbheochan Ghaelach?) designed to be taught when the ROI came into existance, in a hope to revitalise the language. It's not "true" Irish.

We're taught to read stories and poems. In French class, I was taught to learn to speak the language. IMO, it's not the langauge, but it's how we're taught the languge that's the problem.

RedPlanet · 19-10-2009 05:42PM

daithicarr wrote: »

no one can provide anything to indicate the majority dont want it, not the slightest shred of evidence so far

And can you provide a justification as to why we should keep funding it?

T runner · 19-10-2009 05:47PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But they can learn English at home if its the spoken language there no need to be wasting money on all that useless poetry and prose.
Basic nemeracy skills are well learnt in national school. Mathematics is a complete waste of money in secondary school?

European languages of small population being translated: Galician, Luxemberger off the top of my head.

Only in a hypernationalistic climate could a mere linguistic preference get defined as a "right." It is an obvious fact that these translations are not necessary for the smooth workings of the Irish state or the EU. So why are we entertaining the cost of producing them?

What are you talking about? So a German does not have the right to read public documants in Germany as this is a linguistic preference.????

Anybody asking to read a public document in any language anywhere in the world can be accused of hypernationalism by your argument. According to you our TDS only voted for the OLA because they were afraid of being torn to shreds by the hyper-nationalist mob: see below.

I am saying that when it comes to the Irish language, our politicians, afraid of being regarded as unpatriotic, axiomatically vote in favour of any pro-Irish scheme that comes down the pipeline.

Maybe because they see the value of keeping a live language that has lived and developed almosy exclusively in Ireland for over 3000 years?
Maybe your distrust and mis-association of Irish nationalism with the Irish language are clouding your judgement on a question of a language.

Who are the politicians afraid of by the way?

Then why can't more of us actually speak it? Why aren't people buying books written in it, or availing themselves of government documentation translated into it? Is the Irish language a bit like the works of James Joyce, which have attained a great deal of popular backing in Ireland since the 1980s, even though most people have never actually read them?

Thats a backward way of telling us youve read Ulyssess is it? (bows humbly)

People are sending their school kids to Irish speaking schools in large amounts.
This amounts to a wish that their children speak Irish, does it not?. I think you may know that people are reading books in Irish. A few stats about unpopular books that got grants is hardly evidence that nobody reads Irish?

And a lot of the attempts to revive it seem to stem from a refusal to accept Ireland's place in the modern, cosmopolitan Anglosphere

.

Thats a crazy assertion. You are confusing continuing the use of Irish with discontinuing the use of English. Nobody has brought that one into the argument bar you.

The huge amount of multinational companies that have been situated in Ireland from English speaking countries is proof that we are more than willing and able to take advantage of the literacy in English here.

Just to break your illusion, there are many countries in the English speaking world which are not modern or cosmopolitan.

Also there are many bilingual (irish and english speaking) people in Ireland who might be described as modern and cosmopolitan. I know a good few. Will dropping Irish make them more cosmopolitan? Or maybe the language they speak has little to do with it?

cyclopath2001 · 19-10-2009 06:14PM

daithicarr wrote: »

Other reports have shown there is still a large support for its promotion.

And these reports were prepared by the people who had something to gain from the outcome?

daithicarr wrote: »

it is a baseless and laughable assumption to think these figures and reports are some how made up to deceive the unwilling public out of their taxes to support the language.

We have a Fianna Fail government...go figure.

daithicarr wrote: »

no one has offered ANY plausible evidence to suggest that the current level of support is seen as too much by the general public.

Because the costs have been concealed? And, lets judge the level of support from the number of people who support it enough to actually speak it?

daithicarr wrote: »

and so it seems are most others as their is no wide spread appeal to have the status of the language changed.

No need to change the status, let's keep it on a nice pedestal. Let's just adjust the budget?

Permabear · 19-10-2009 06:20PM

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet · 19-10-2009 06:22PM

Do the pro-Irish posters believe that removing the subsidising of the Irish language means it will disappear?

fischer · 19-10-2009 06:51PM

S'funny - I dislike Irish intensely. I think its a nasty, guttural sounding language and I want nothing to do with it. If it vanished tomorrow, I'd be mildly pleased.

And yet, I can't help thinking that the withdrawal of overt Government support would actually make it stonger. Every year, tens of thousands of students leave school having spent twelve or more years learning Irish. A significant proportion of those students leave with a dislike of the language. You can argue the toss about whether its a majority/minority but the number is pretty big.

Imagine if these students left with a total ambivalence towards Irish and a foreign language or two instead.

We seem (Gaelscoileanna excepted) to have more success turning out cohort of almost passable French/German speakers. Students that have not been given an opportunity to grow hostile towards Irish seem more likely to be interested in tackling it as a vanity project later in life. Even more so if they have successfully learnt a language in addition to English.

No reason why Irish couldn't be treated in much the same way as hurling or football - an extra curricular activity that could be presented as a prestige activity. Those parents that particularly cared for an all Irish education can always choose it.

As far as I can see this would result in a population of people who studied through Irish, people who consciously chose Irish and people who were left alone by it to perhaps pick it up later. And critically, a much smaller number of people who actively hate it.

Regarding the often quoted point about Gaelscoileanna - the two couples I know who chose them, picked 'em on the basis of the smaller number of non-native English speaking children that attended. Their reasoning was that their children would not suffer as a teacher struggled to teach due to variable 'class language' abilities. I imagine that particularly non-PC thought could cause massive cranial bleeding in some but there you go. Yes, I know, I'm a horrible racist for even knowing them.

All that said, I'd like to see the language fade away to the level of Greek or Latin - only pursued by those that really want it, at the very least cost to the general populace. And the current government support is, in my view, contributing to that process. So, while I don't particularly like the amount that is being spent, spending it badly does at least get me what I want. That is a slow marginalisation with Irish being the preserve of those that seek it out.

Trying to take an objective view (honest!), the current pro-Irish lobby strikes me as similar to groups that try to defend a monopoly or an uncompetitive industry - state support and coercion are easier paths (once you begin them) than having to stand for yourself.

A dependency/entitlement cycle has been allowed to build up where a career in Irish can only be with a state agency (or directly tied to government activity). And the purpose of all that organisational apparatus is to promote the language so that there will be someone to promote the language.

If Irish had been the remit of the GAA at the foundation of the state and ignored entirely by successive governments, I suspect the picture today would be quite different.

Fischer.

starbelgrade · 19-10-2009 08:50PM

T runner wrote: »

I did read it. Moving on now.

I'd see that as more of a case of moving away, or pure avoidance. Either way, that's fine with me. I find it very hard to debate with someone who allows for no concessions. It's often easier to fight one's corner, if one steps out of their corner every now & again.

But I'm moving on... Here's where I stand at the minute. I think Irish is a great part of our heritage & of our culture and I believe that the two cannot be seperated with a straight line.

We may be a more cosmopolitan & anglophile these days, but that does not negate the importance of the Irish language. It does perhaps make it's preservation even more important. But not at all costs.

There is no reason to have every government or EU referendum / election document printed into Irish, then sent to every household in the country. It costs twice as much as it should do. The simple solution to this is that, when registering on the voting registor of electors, you simply choose to have the documents sent to you in either Irish or English.

The same goes for those booklets that accompany ESB / Bord Gas bills.

And translation costs can always negaotiated.

Should everything by the EU be translated to Irish? Why should it? How many Irish speakers cannot read or speak English? I honestly don't know. I'd imagine that the numbers are tiny, but even if they are, this is no reason to exclude them from the process. At whatever cost. If there are none, then why waste the money? It would hurt no-one.

If you take the mostly Spanish co-official languages such as Galician, Basque & Catalan... having spent over 10 years on the north coast of Spain, I found that none of these are widely spoken on a day to day basis, despite what their autonomous governments would have you believe & in all the time I was there, I never met one person who didn't undestand Castellano even if the language they primarily used was the less used of the two. That of course doesn't mean that there are some who don't understand Castellano & if there are not, then they shouldn't be excluded either.

And should Irish be taught in schools. I believe it should. But should it be compulsory? That's another question. A lot of the problems we have with compulsory subjects is how they are taught, rather than the fault of the subjects themselves. When I was in primary school, one foreign language was compulsory & as French was the only one available to students, French was compulsory. I learned as much French as I did Irish or Maths. I happened to love English, so I enjoyed that & did reasonably well in it.

Later, when I moved to Spain, I learned Spanish, firstly out of necessity, then out of love for the language. My point is that, by making things compulsory, by forcing people to learn them, it's very hard to get results. If people have a need or a love to learn a particular subject, they will often exceed in it.

Then you can have pride in what you have achieved. The argument that the knowledge of Irish is inextricably linked with nationalism or patriotism doesn't wash with me. You can have pride in being able to speak Irish without wanting to be back in the 1900's, dancing to schiddle-de-ie music & ranting about "kicking the brits out", just the same way as you can learn French without wanting to wear a beret, joining the Resistance & "killing the hun".

That's where I stand now & I'm open to persuasion. But if you are going to quote me & post an opinion on what I have said, I'd appreciate if you take the time to read what I have actually written.

Grudaire · 19-10-2009 10:39PM

Hmmm, I'm afraid to enter the fray here, however I feel that I really should...

Firstly I'd like to agree with Fischer, in a way the Irish Language is suffering from it's own sucesses. I read a very interesting article on how the Welsh Language activists used non-violent protest to win the language rights, and it very much became a pride thing for many Welsh people. Unfortunatly here everyone (in power at least) likes the idea of the language, but are willing to leave it to everyone else to actually use it. (From Fianna Fáil to even potential parties (Amhrán Nua), with the exception of fringe parties the lack of Irish even on their websites is clearly at odds with the policies they put forward)

Now moving onto the argument at hand, it is a case that we have to firstly work out if the Irish Language is worthy of the status it has, and also if the current methods are best preserving the language.

I personnally believe that Irish does deserve equal footing, and if we do not allow people to work through Irish we are effectively finishing off the job that was started a long time ago. Assuming people do want the language preserved we have to allow those who want to speak it to do business with the government through the language.

Secondly the method in which the language is preserved is a better topic in my opinion. Mainly because I'm not sure if there is a 'right' way, and we will have to mix strategys using the resources available. Be this is providing more for Gaelscoils, or Summer colleges and less to Gaeltachts, or visa versa.
I don't know how to do it, but employment is the best hope that the language has.

Finally the fact of the matter is that Gaelgeoirs are taxpayers too, and this should not be brushed over - Your money can pay for the report that noone reads, and mine can go on translating it,

Is mise le meas,

Cliste

starbelgrade · 19-10-2009 11:11PM

Cliste wrote: »

Hmmm, I'm afraid to enter the fray here, however I feel that I really should...

I don't blame ya being afraid, but glad you have added to the debate.

The Corinthian · 20-10-2009 06:26AM

Cliste wrote: »

Now moving onto the argument at hand, it is a case that we have to firstly work out if the Irish Language is worthy of the status it has, and also if the current methods are best preserving the language.

That's the rub really. The problem is that while many, including myself, like the idea of the language, one really needs a better reason to be spending so many resources that could be better spent.

The reasons for maintaining is appear to be purely nationalistic or romantic. No one is disadvantaged working through English, as is the reason for other official languages in other countries. Indeed, for the vast majority who for many professions have to learn the language (often doing crash courses so that they can pass a basic test, as they do at the bar) it is the other way around.

Added to this is the apparent futility of it all. It is declining in the long run, and has been for decades. Is it worth our while to keep a language on life support when it may die regardless?

So really we need to decide if romanticism alone is worth the price - and there is a price to romanticism and nationalism. Anyone who says otherwise is frankly a fool.

Finally the fact of the matter is that Gaelgeoirs are taxpayers too, and this should not be brushed over - Your money can pay for the report that noone reads, and mine can go on translating it,

It's really a non-argument, following from your first. Either the language us worth preserving or it is not, as you said. If it is, then naturally it is a matter for all tax payers, be they Gaelgeoirs or not. If not, then the Gaelgeoirs, tax paying or not, are not sufficient in numbers to pay for it and the rest should not have to carry them or the language.

Aard · 20-10-2009 07:14AM

I can speak Irish fluently. I'm not from a Gaeltacht, nor have I ever spoken the language while visiting one. I went to a naíonra, a gaelscoil, and a gaelcholáiste. I read the occasional Irish newspaper or Wikipedia article - hell I've even written a few! However, I do believe that too much money is pumped into the wrong areas that claim to aid the rejuvenation of Irish. Translations, interpreters, road-signage, etc.

Instead of starting from the top down, why not start from the bottom up? Why not subsidise a grocery-store where everything is labelled in Irish, and the staff speak Irish? Why not offer free Irish classes to people outside the Gaeltachts? Why not get rid of mandatory Irish in the LC, and make it so that the people who actually want to study it can do so to a higher level?

There are so many things that could be done. The top-down approach is lead-by-example in nature - and what examples do we have? The odd ceremonial cúpla focal in the Dáil? Please. Until kids see that it's a useful language, they're not going to bother learning it. There needs to be a community made (outside the Gaeltacht mind) before any money goes to the frivolities - e.g. translations of Development Plans that nobody reads.

Now don't get me wrong, all you Gaelgóirí, I'm all for more people using the language, and for the rights of those who already speak it. What you must understand, though, is that a lot of non-Irish speakers resent subsidising things that they don't see as worthwhile. Until they realise that they can be part of the community too, they have the upper-hand, as Irish-speakers are in the vast minority. This sounds counter-productive, but you have to win them over. And winning them over entails cutting down on useless translating. I'm sure they would have no problem if all the translating money was spent on free language-classes, or other community service. Just as long as it wouldn't be seen as being wasted.

T runner · 20-10-2009 11:15AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But it is not absolutely essential. Let make it optional and snip a few quid.
The ones that have trouble at home can tell their children to choose it.

A government will naturally publish documents in whatever language(s) are necessary for public understanding and for the smooth functioning of democracy. A language does not need to be designated as "official" for this to happen. The United States, for instance, has no "official" language, despite recent attempts by conservatives to impose one. But does the U.S. government translate everything it publishes into Cherokee? No, it doesn't.

But does it publish in Spanish? No? then perhaps spanish along with English should be made official languages.

Yes, I've read Ulysses, not to mention Finnegans Wake, too. And I'll note that Joyce, despite speaking many languages himself, was no fan of Irish language revival: "If the Irish programme did not insist on the Irish language, I suppose I could call myself a nationalist," he wrote to his brother Stanislaus. "As it is, I am content to recognize myself an exile: and, prophetically, a repudiated one."

There are many celebrated people who support the Irish language. Do you wish to turn this thread into a whos got tyhe most celebrities competition.

What Joyce thought in this regard is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Irish people through their democratically elected government have chosen Ireland as one of their official languages. No amount of bitter confuded individuals who dont see the difference between a language and a political ideology will change that.

That said I will concede that Irish was more associated with nationalism at that time.

Can you provide evidence that people are reading Irish? Do any Irish-language bestsellers come to mind?

My grandmother recently had a book published posthumously which although a small publication contained essays in Irish about literary figures in the Meath and midlands areas.

The book was well received and has sold all 2000 copies we printed. No grants were received to publish this BTW just a collective family effort.

"Book publishing in the Irish language is a small niche area with approximately a hundred new titles being published each year. The majority of Irish literary titles receive financial assistance either from Bord na Leabhar Gaeilge (Gaelic Books Board) or the Irish Arts Council. The total income of Irish-language publishers is estimated to be less than US$2 million, with approximately one-third of this income received by way of grants. Due to limitations in demand for publications in the Irish language, it is difficult for the sector to receive economic self-sufficiency, and a certain level of continuing dependency on public agencies for funding would seem to be inevitable" (An Introduction to Book History by David Finkelstein & Alistair McCleery, 2005, p.131)

.

Yes but a hundred books is not negligeable and is actually quite an impressive amount for people to write in what you call a "dead" language is it not?

So you're arguing now that a bilingual nation was the desired end-product of Irish language revival? What happened to Pearse's strident "the English language is not our language; in stating that fact we have stated our whole case against it"? :rolleyes:

Ofcourse, A bilingual Ireland is the desired and only result of an Irish language revival. You are in a very tiny mionority who think otherwise.

You are clearly biased against Irish because of a hatred you have for nationalism, almost every argument you make contains at least one reference to nationalism. I dont thinbk youre capable of looking at this topic objectively.

Grudaire · 20-10-2009 11:28AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

The reasons for maintaining is appear to be purely nationalistic or romantic.

...

If not, then the Gaelgeoirs, tax paying or not, are not sufficient in numbers to pay for it and the rest should not have to carry them or the language.

Right, well firstly you seem to use some stats, but don't have them backed up. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but by how much is the Irish Language declining now, and show me that the cost of the translations cannot in theory be borne by Gaelgeoirs while your discreationary tax goes on things like the spire and PPARS, and mainly on John O'Donoghue!

I also don't see why preservation of the language isn't a good thing. Nationalism, and romanticism isn't always bad you know! Every year money is pumped into culture all over the world. In our case the Irish Language is part of our culture, and in some ways could be seen as a good way to differentiate from other countries cultures.

I'm not saying that how it is done is the best way, but to be fair these threads tend to be a way for people to spout an anti-Irish agenda. Aard, you make some good points. As I said it will have to be employment that will give the language a chance, and the more people are employed through the language, the more outlets become available for Irish speakers.

RedPlanet · 20-10-2009 11:48AM

Cliste wrote: »

I also don't see why preservation of the language isn't a good thing. Nationalism, and romanticism isn't always bad you know! Every year money is pumped into culture all over the world. In our case the Irish Language is part of our culture, and in some ways could be seen as a good way to differentiate from other countries cultures.

But what's so good about this?
Your side have not articulated why it's necessary to continue to prop-up the language.

Permabear · 20-10-2009 11:57AM

This post has been deleted.

T runner · 20-10-2009 12:22PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No I would not. This was an ACT however which had approval of the Dail and therefore of the people.

That's a nice story. And for the record, I have no objection to that at all.

Its an example that disproves your assertion that Irish is not been read.
The Irish website www.gaelport.com had over a million hits last year.

The larger point, though, is that the market for Irish-language books in this country is just this side of negligible. The state is paying writers to write books, and publishers to publish books, that mostly languish unread in warehouses.

Thats just not true. You have extrapolated from a couple of extreme examples from a sunday times article that most Irish books lie unread in warehouses. Again the fact that 100 books per year are being published points a language very much alive.

From the founding of Conradh na Gaeilge in 1893, the Irish language revival movement has always been inextricably conjoined with the nationalistic project. You simply can't ignore that historical and political reality.

Then please tell me how the OLA of 2003 is "inextricably conjoined with the nationalistic project".

PLease clarify what exactly you mean by "the nationalistic project".

The Corinthian · 20-10-2009 12:24PM

Cliste wrote: »

Right, well firstly you seem to use some stats, but don't have them backed up. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but by how much is the Irish Language declining now, and show me that the cost of the translations cannot in theory be borne by Gaelgeoirs while your discreationary tax goes on things like the spire and PPARS, and mainly on John O'Donoghue!

I said it has been declining for decades, that much is not in dispute by anyone. Whether it has suddenly received a recent and sustainable revival is another matter, and highly debatable.

I also don't see why preservation of the language isn't a good thing. Nationalism, and romanticism isn't always bad you know!

Preservation of the language is a good thing - but not at any cost and not when it becomes futile.

That is the problem with nationalism and romanticism - it does not count the cost of what it seeks to achieve. That is for the poor smucks who did not sacrifice themselves at the alter of the Fatherland to pay.

I'm not saying that how it is done is the best way, but to be fair these threads tend to be a way for people to spout an anti-Irish agenda.

Please don't be so dismissive.

As I said it will have to be employment that will give the language a chance, and the more people are employed through the language, the more outlets become available for Irish speakers.

And who will pay the salaries of these employees? Unless you expect the tax payer to foot the bill for a continuation of the culture of "jobs for the buachaill", it will have to be funded by market forces - which, if you return to the first post in this thread, are unlikely to make a profit.

Is it no really time to assess how much the irish language costs us all?

Comments