I'm just waiting for the day when they make Scots an official language.

"O'er fower hunner' members o' the European Perlaiment votit tae caw agin enlairgment o' the EU sayin' wi' wan vyce that ther' wis nae need to mak it mair muckle than it awready wis"

Delighted to see this development and finally justification for those who have campaigned long and hard for this.

Making Irish Gaelic a recognized EU language is about as useful as speaking Latin, my old school language.

Is this the shoe in sometimes suggested?

The Belfast Telegraph suggested that there could well be opposition from other countries, and it might not happen?

I personally think it's a bad idea- there's few enough decent translators about without the britghtest and the best wasting their time translating stuff no one will read in Brussels.

I also can't really see why Irish is more vital than Catalan, Basque, Luxumbourgish, Welsh.. etc etc. Have the floodgates opened? Did the Maltese open the floodgates first? How much will this cost when all the other languages join the list (or will we have to develop a multi-tier translating system?)

But I know Maca disagrees..

Lord Belmont
why do you think your obvious ignorance of the Irish language qualifies you to make such a statement?

"But I know Maca disagrees.."

Maybe, maybe not.

"Anois, ca bhfuil mo focloir?"

If you have to go reaching for a dictionary Mick, you may not qualify (just kidding) ;-))

I'm pleased for those to whom this is an important development. I'm pleased for the EU if they are going to show they value the various languages of their members. The only doubts I have
1) will this cause greater dissension for more of those excluded than it causes goodwill amongst those who feel they are now properly enfranchised IF other languages such as Catalan are not granted similar status ?
2) will the extra expense be value for money, if funds that could be used elsewhere are diverted to fund other language provisions?

The Spanish government are the ones blocking Catalan not the EU, just as the British government would have to be the ones campaigning for Welsh.

The cost will be borne by the Irish government and will run to 10 million euros a year. That's a quarter of what horse racing gets each year and comes out out a government budget of 43,000,000,000 euros.

Peanuts for giving status to one of the nine main language stems of Europe as the former head of Deutsche Bank would have said.

'The cost will be borne by the Irish government and will run to 10 million euros a year'

no it won't it'll be borne by the EU budget generally. Ireland aren;'t going to contribute more because of this, are they?

The head of the translation section quoted 200 million a year, where did you get 10 from?

And anyway you're totally missing the point. If the Irish Government wants to spend 200 Milion Euro (or even 10) on promoting Irish, is this the best way to do it? aren't there other priorities? I gather there is a lack of teaching materials in Irish, well there's going to be a lot less poele around to translate stuff..

'The cost will be borne by the Irish government and will run to 10 million euros a year. That's a quarter of what horse racing gets each year and comes out out a government budget of 43,000,000,000 euros.'

This argument could be used for anything and should therefore be used for nothing.

IDM said:

"The Belfast Telegraph suggested that there could well be opposition from other countries, and it might not happen?"

Any opposition is likely to be because of internal politics regarding certain states' own minoritised languages, though since some speakers will undoubtedly conclude that one only gets anything if independent like the Irish, it might not be in those states' interest to play hard ball. The Spanish Socialists have already called for Basque, Catalan and Galician to have the same status, a pragmatic move.

"I personally think it's a bad idea- there's few enough decent translators about without the britghtest and the best wasting their time translating stuff no one will read in Brussels."

Not all such translators wish to work in Northern Ireland for various reasons, so the organs of state ó thuaidh will not necessarily be directly disadvantaged. In time, the supply-side measures likely to be encouraged by official status in the EU may benefit NI language policy. With minoritised languages, the motto is "use it or lose it". Providing real jobs for speakers is better than silly linguistic tests applied to unconnected posts, something that failed in Ireland.

"I also can't really see why Irish is more vital than Catalan, Basque, Luxumbourgish, Welsh.. etc etc. Have the floodgates opened? Did the Maltese open the floodgates first? How much will this cost when all the other languages join the list (or will we have to develop a multi-tier translating system?)"

Irish is not any more vital than the other languages; it has fewer native speakers than any of the others. It could, however, be argued that it is important to maintain Celtic languages, since a whole language group is threatened with extinction, whereas Catalan is intermediate between French and Spanish. Such debates can easily descend into ethnic nonsense, however, so it might be best to haud ma wheesht.

I believe that there is already a multi-tier translation system using English as an auxiliary, so there is no additional cost. Even with enlargement and the newly recognised languages, it is likely to be cheaper.

Idunnomyself,
the figure is 10 million euros. 200 million to translate into Irish is a ridiculous figure. Think about it.

From today's Examiner.

"The Irish language is set to become the 21st official language of the EU, employing 110 translators at an annual cost of about €10 million.

The move was welcomed by Ireland west MEP Seán Ó Neachtain, the only native Irish speaker in the European Parliament of 732 deputies.

Discussions are due to begin on the details today in Brussels and it is expected that the other member states will give the go-ahead inside the next few months.

It will mean jobs for 110 translators fluent in the language, who can earn up to €85,000 a year interpreting speakers in the parliament and translating all decisions made in the EU into Irish.

There are 20 official languages employing 3,000 people translating about two billion pages a year at a cost of €1 billion, or about €2 per citizen annually.

The Government decided to look for the language to be recognised at EU level last June after Mr Ó Neachtain and Sinn Féin made it one of their aims during the elections to the European Parliament.

"I welcome this move and will be delighted to be able to speak my own native language in the parliament in the future," said Mr Ó Neachtain.

When Ireland joined the EU in 1973, the Government turned down the option of having Irish as an official language but agreed to have it used as a treaty language.

As a result, all EU treaties, including the new European Constitution, have been translated into Irish.

The change will also mean that European citizens may contact the EU institutions using Irish and expect a reply in the language.

There are an estimated 260,000 fluent Irish speakers in the country, with about 40,000 who use it as their first language. There are also three dialects, Connacht, Ulster and Munster.

The Catalans have been pushing for some time to have their language, used on a daily basis by an estimated 70% of their 7 million population, but so far Spain is reluctant to pursue this.

Following enlargement of the EU from 15 to 25 members last May, the number of official languages increased from 11 to 20. However, finding sufficient interpreters and translators has proven difficult. Maltese is still without its complement of translators while a shortage in other languages is delaying publication of documents.

Translators can work anywhere they want- in the age of e-mail it is the perfect mobile job.

My point is more about the capacity of high quality translators of Irish. They are already much more expensive than Welsh translators, for example.

(surely you mean 'demand side' measures- it is supply that there is shortage of)

The EU has no legaslative basis to promote/ preserve/ encourage any language. This issue is solely about communication from their point of view.

To go back to my first point, I'm not sure if anyone *can* stop this happening now- even if they wanted to?

"The move was welcomed by Ireland west MEP Seán Ó Neachtain, the only native Irish speaker in the European Parliament of 732 deputies."

So its going to cost 10million euro and benefit one man. Cost effective!

Idunnomyself,
if 10million has to be spent to accord Irish the status it deserves, then so be it. I'm not going to whinge about it.

"This argument could be used for anything and should therefore be used for nothing."

If you cared to read the next sentence, you would have noted that I qualified that comment with "Peanuts for giving status to one of the nine main language stems of Europe".

For me, spending 10 million on Irish is using a small amount of the state's 43,000 million annual budget and is worthwhile above and beyond whatever else is needed for Irish.

Your argument that it could be better spent can also be used for anything and therefore shouldn't be used.
The question you should ask instead is whether the 10 million is worthwhile and whether the money means cuts in other areas for Irish.

It is worthwhile and it won't mean cuts so let's do it.

Will,
that is a very stupid comment. Shows how close you feel to the EU if you believe it's only MEPs who have contact with its institutions.

Why didn't you read the rest:

"The change will also mean that European citizens may contact the EU institutions using Irish and expect a reply in the language.

"There are an estimated 260,000 fluent Irish speakers in the country, with about 40,000 who use it as their first language. There are also three dialects, Connacht, Ulster and Munster."

It will benefit all these people.

This is a backward step. If the Euro was a good idea, how come a common European language isn't? English should become the common European language and scrap translations into anything else. Who reads the translations? Anyone here? It's inevitable that English will become the European language. We should stop wasting money fighting it. All entries for the European Song Farce already use English, bar France.

(Oh and BTW, I'm against a common currency. Currency conversion is a simple mathematical step whereas language translation is quite time consuming.)

I have every sympathy with langauge revivals but sheesh.

Over 80 years of 'official' recognition in the RoI that has done SFA to stop the decline in Gaelic.

How will more of the same (with some geographical dislocation thrown in) be of any benefit to Gaelic?

Its just like the Scots Gaelic afficianadoes who invested heavily for years in TV programmes while their school system collapsed. An unwise investment of time and money that could be of more use elsewhere.

Fair_deal, just to correct you in case offence is taken. "Irish" & "Scottish Gaelic" are the correct terms.



IDM - a lack of teaching materials??

A shortage of translators - more job opportunities for Irish speakers might encourage those with an interest in the language to use it.

Congal Claen,
why on earth would we have English as our common language in the euro zone when only 1% speak English (Irish Republic) as their first language?

Surely German should be the one. Germany and Austria make up nearly half of eurozone GDP and a quarter of the people and would be much more appropriate. I fear you are suggesting this just because like most English speakers you are only proficient in one language.

Fair_deal,
the question is not whether it could be used for something, the question is whether it's worthwhile. Those in Irish language circles believe it is and anyway, you can't put a price on your heritage.

A proud people are a productive people.

The Irish language is compulsory in Irish schools, we have an Irish language station and we have still managed to have the fastest growing economy in the EU in the last ten years.

IDM said:

"(surely you mean 'demand side' measures- it is supply that there is shortage of)"

No, I mean supply-side measures. The EU will make Irish translation a more attractive career path and also encourage the Irish Government to increase the supply of such translators, some of whom will end up doing work for Departments and agencies in NI. To make one very specific point, simultaneous translation of the sort done in the European Parliament is very difficult, and many people who would not cut the mustard at it would still make good paper translators.

Fair deal said:

"Over 80 years of 'official' recognition in the RoI that has done SFA to stop the decline in Gaelic."

It stopped it dying out like it did in the Antrim and Sperrins Gaeltachtaí in the North.

George

My objection is not the expenditure or about language promotion. I simply believe it is a campaign to be seen to be doing something and allow the government to spend money that will have no practical effect in maintaining or developing the language. Irish language circles can focus their efforts and these resources to more productive things IMHO.

"Irish language circles" define please?

Congrats on the economic growth by the way but the relevance please?

Maca

I'll call it whatever I wish I refuse to be put in a PC straight-jacket.

Chris Guthrie

The Galetachs in RoI have been ever shrinking despite this 'official' approach.

George : A proud people are a productive people.

A proud people are a dangerous people!

Fair deal:

Yes, the Gaeltachtaí have been shrinking in the RoI, but in the North they shrank away to nothing. If the aim of Irish Government policy has been to keep Irish culture alive for current generations of voters, it has been a success.

Incidentally, "Scottish Gaelic" is not simply a PC affectation. "Scots Gaelic" is simply wrong, since the word "Scots" originates in Lowland Scots and those who speak of "Scots Gaelic" generally use the word "Scottish" as the default adjective in every context except this one, where it is linguistically wrong and likely to confuse. It shows ignorance rather than anything else.

I suppose that one could argue that "Scots Gaelic" is the Irish English for Scottish English "Scottish Gaelic", but that would be a little complicated.

"I'll call it whatever I wish I refuse to be put in a PC straight-jacket"

Suit yourself, I was only trying to be helpful.
But now you know that you will cause offence to some people, u just need to be aware of it that's all even if you don't care.

Chairman Seoirse doesn't think so Davros :-)
I'm currently working on my own green book entitled "Pride not prejudice".

Fair_Deal,
My obtuse reference to economic growth was in reply to your obtuse comment about investment in Scottish Gaelic while their school system collapsed.
Why is it that people put such little value on their heritage just because it has no corporate value.
Do you believe funding of Scottish Gaelic should have been the first to go because Scotland appears to be going down the tubes? How much were they getting? A couple of million?

I personally don't think investment in the language of our ancestors and some of our present-day compatriots can have that detrimental an effect on the Irish economy or the school system.

It helps us understand where we come from and what we are which in turn helps us to understand others and to find our place in this world.

Spending 10 million a year to afford people the right to do their business through the Irish language is a small price to pay for such an important right.
The EU is more and more prevalent in our lives and the most important thing about a language is to be able to use it in your everyday life.

Why else do you think one of the main tools the English used to try and make it extinct was the prevention of its use in official business.

Maca and others interested - we talked about a wonderful book "who needs Irish" earlier on in the year. I get e-mailed the Book list from Read Ireland, amongst books on sale , Who Needs Irish reduced from €15 to €11.00.

It could, however, be argued that it is important to maintain Celtic languages,

Is IDM's point not precisely that - spending so much money and resources on the technicality of official-language status could have precisely the opposite effect.

I think it is extremely dubious that official status at any level really assists the language. It sure as hell hasn't helped Ulster Scots!

Chris/Maca

Lighten up the PC line was tongue in cheek. I am well aware of the formal references and the issues of language revivals across Europe.

Chris

The age structure of the northern gaeltachs meant they had passed tipping point plus their lack of remotness in comparision with other gaeltach's was a major contributor in the decline. Imply partition was to blame if you wish I dont think it was.

George

Please read my comments for pity's sake. I do not oppose public expenditure on lesser-used languages (official or otherwise). I believe in the value of heritage to a society.

The Scottish example was to show how a language movement can focus on an issue that is incidental to more important issues. They wanted the profile media programmes gave them to the detriment of the systems that would truly perpetuate the language - education.

It wasn't an argument how resources are allocated by a language movement not whether they should have them in the first place.

What I cannot see for the life of me is any real and meaningful improvement coming to Irish Gaelic from getting this EU recognition.

Oh, good man Davros!
...actually it's still listed as €15 Eur, do you need to be a subscriber?

"Presbyterians and the Irish Language" - Roger Blaney, might be interesting.

IJP.
"could have precisely the opposite effect."

Could, but possibly could not.
Only my own opinion of course but I think there is still a stigma attached to the language, it's still viewed as a peasant language by many. Perhaps (though perhaps not) affording Irish the respect it deserves might help get over this stigma.

Maca, if you can read the forwarded e mail, there's instructions on how to order at reduced price , and a rather nift set of multi-purchase offers. I have at least 20 books still waiting but I'm still ordering The End of Catholicism? By Vincent Twomey: Full Price 15 Euro,
Reduced Price 6 Euro

Fair_Deal,
"What I cannot see for the life of me is any real and meaningful improvement coming to Irish Gaelic from getting this EU recognition."

As I said in my previous post: The EU is more and more prevalent in our lives and the most important thing about a language is to be able to use it in your everyday life. This decision means people can. How much more important and meaningful an improvement can you get.

This isn't a move for people to learn the language, this is a move for people who want to use the language.

"Irish language circles can focus their efforts and these resources to more productive things IMHO."
Money to develop the language is a completely different matter and shouldn't be put in the same category as this decision, which is affording Irish speakers the same right as English speakers. Parity of esteem and all that.

The two areas shouldn't be confused. Irish is an official language of this country and this is just another recognition of this right.

"Parity of esteem"

A nice phrase, but a nightmare to pin down !

Just got the email, you're a star Davros. Thanks a million!
(i'm such a cheap-skate, there must be Cavan blood in me.)

"I'm just waiting for the day when they make Scots an official language."

Why not? There are probably more people speak it. This is a shameful waste of money and demonstrates the pandering nature of the European Institutions. A joke.

Can't say I have a really strong view either way, Maca, but I do believe that people vastly overplay the 'peasant language' line and vastly underplay the 'language forced on us at school' line.

The trick - with which Welsh was far more successful than Irish - is to combine making knowledge of the language advantageous, with not making it appear in any way obligatory.

My instinct is that this move does not help that balance. However Dónall Ó Riagáin, a good friend of mine, native Irish speaker and former head of the European Bureau, did support the Stadas campaign and his is a judgement I would trust on such issues.

IJP
Thanks
"vastly underplay the 'language forced on us at school' line."

Actually I think this line is overplayed. ;)
I honestly don't believe for a second that the language is forced on us. I've always thought that that was just a silly excuse. There was a lot worse subjects than Irish forced on us ;)

If I had been born into a RC family I could by now have been a happy Irish-speaking Jesuit bickering with WF and Chris S, rather than sweating over a boring article on the urban-planning strategy of the revolutionary government for the Ng’ambo neighborhoods of Zanzibar City... ain't life a b*tch ?

Christopher Stalford wrote (responding to this comment "I'm just waiting for the day when they make Scots an official language.") that:

'Why not? There are probably more people speak it. This is a shameful waste of money and demonstrates the pandering nature of the European Institutions. A joke.'

I was joking but there are, unquestionably, many more people who speak some form of Scots than who speak Irish and Scottish Gaelic combined.

Part of the problem, from my point of view, with the promotion of Gaelic in Scotland is that is/was often wrapped up with an entirely false perspective on the linguistic history of Scotland. Gaelic was continually being promoted as 'our' national language -- in fact one of the major educational series on learning Scottish Gaelic was called 'Speaking Our Language'.

When in fact, for the bulk of the population of Scotland living in the Central Belt and the Lowlands, Gaelic is not and never has been our language. If anything has a claim to being 'our' language, for those not in the North and West of the country, it is Scots.

This historical revisionism about the role of the Gaelic language often also goes along with a load of nostalgic rubbish in which the culture of the Highlands and Islands is the 'real' culture of Scotland and everything else is somehow inauthentic.

This is not to say that Gaelic education shouldn't be supported and promoted in Scotland or that real financial resources shouldn't be spent on it. It just might be better spent on educating the children of Gaelic speakers and supporting Gaelic speaking communites rather than on expensive television programs mostly being broadcast to people who don't speak Gaelic, will never speak Gaelic and whose ancestors mostly never spoke Gaelic.

"Scotland" is as artificial a construct as "France" or "Ireland".

"This is a shameful waste of money and demonstrates the pandering nature of the European Institutions. A joke."

Christopher,
Why is it a waste of money to afford up to 300,000 of our citizens the right, if they so
wish, to conduct their business through Irish. We can afford to afford these people that right and the EU knows it. Do you think they would be so forthcoming if we weren't stumping up hard cash?

We're paying, unlike NI which is Objective One Status for the forseeable future. Don't hear you ever mentioning that. To me giving money to an unreconstructed NI economy is a bigger waste of EU money than supporting those who use one of the nine European langauge stems, the only one facing extinction.
As I said, what price heritage. Not everything worthwhile has corporate value

Well over 200 years of this level of funding wouldn't even manage the cover one year of subvention which NI gets from the British exchequer.

what price heritage

As heritage is always contested, would we be better to forget about heritage ?

I have since enquired and found that this is in fact untrue. While Ahern and the Provos may talk about wanting to make Irish an official language (although I don't think Ahern really believes in it), no proposals have been placed either on the floor of the parliament or to the commission.

The system is already creaking under 20+ languages, there is no need for Irish to become an official language. I stand by my contention that to do so would be nothing short of pandering.

For my part is seems sensible that the EU adopt the majority languages of its constituent states as official languages but it seems silly to also adopt minority languages of its constituent states.

Even in cases like Ireland where the minority language has a strong historical status and was, at one time, the majority language of the country.

Even in cases like Ireland where the minority language has a strong historical status and was, at one time, the majority language of the country.

Standardised Irish has never been the majority language of Ireland. It's a modern construct.

Matt said:

"Part of the problem, from my point of view, with the promotion of Gaelic in Scotland is that is/was often wrapped up with an entirely false perspective on the linguistic history of Scotland. Gaelic was continually being promoted as 'our' national language -- in fact one of the major educational series on learning Scottish Gaelic was called 'Speaking Our Language'.

When in fact, for the bulk of the population of Scotland living in the Central Belt and the Lowlands, Gaelic is not and never has been our language. If anything has a claim to being 'our' language, for those not in the North and West of the country, it is Scots."

This is an old chestnut. Gaelic was previously spoken everywhere in Scotland except those parts which were incorporated later, namely, the extreme south-east, which was annexed from Northumbria, and the extreme north-east and Northern Isles, which were previously Norse. Gaelic was spoken in south-west Scotland until the seventeenth and possibly eighteenth century in a "linking" dialect almost identical with the Irish of Antrim. This is not to say either that other languages such as British (i.e. Welsh) and Pictish were not also spoken or that Scots is not long established in the Lowlands.

Of course, the fact that the retreat of Gaelic has been so slow makes it understandable that some people in the Lowlands might not have an emotional attachment to it. However, the fact that most placenames in south-west Scotland and the central belt are of Gaelic origin shows that Gaelic was spoken there. Much of the history of the region will remain closed to its inhabitants until such time as Gaelic is taught to schoolchildren as part of a rounded education and bilingual signs are erected.

Although Scots is not particularly influenced by Gaelic linguistically, there would probably never have been a Scots language had Anglic-speakers not inherited a kingdom which allowed the language's separate development. Scots would have the same status as Northumbrian or Yorkshire.

I also think that the "we never spoke it" argument is a little silly unless one has a family tree to hand for the last 1,500 years. The Lowland population is extremely mixed, and many (most?) people have Highland or Irish blood or both.

"This historical revisionism about the role of the Gaelic language often also goes along with a load of nostalgic rubbish in which the culture of the Highlands and Islands is the 'real' culture of Scotland and everything else is somehow inauthentic."

I'm sure the people in the Highlands would agree with you there to an extent, tourist income notwithstanding. Neither language of Scotland gets enough support.

Christopher,
I have checked as well and you are wrong.

A formal request was lodged with the European Union Wednesday to recognise Irish officially as a working language.

Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern revealed a proposal to grant the high level status had been tabled.

“This proposal, if agreed by the member states, would represent a significant positive and practical step forward for the Irish language in the EU,” said Mr Ahern.

Unanimous agreement is needed across member State’s to amend regulations governing the union's language regime, and grant the language official status so you better get on to your local MP and see if you can get it stopped.

"I was joking but there are, unquestionably, many more people who speak some form of Scots than who speak Irish and Scottish Gaelic combined"

Where? In Ireland or Scotland. We're only talking about Ireland here. The issue of Scots is up to the British, nothing to do with this thread really.

Chris:

Certainly, the current range of Gaelic is much much smaller than it was at its largest historical extent and you are right that there have been periods - the 9th, 10th, and 11th centuries - when Gaelic was the language spoken over the majority of Scotland but that period was relatively brief and since that period dialects of Germanic-origin have been spoken over the Central Belt and up the east coast and Gaelic has been not been the majority language of Scotland for a very, very long time.

The rise of the Dalriadic kingdowm in the West of Scotland and the subsequent development of Scottish Gaelic more or less exactly parallels - although begins slightly earlier - a similar expansion into Scotland from the south and east by Germanic-derived dialects from Northumbria which later give rise to Scots (in its various forms). Both Gaelic and Scots displaced earlier

It'd be silly to argue about which language is the 'real' language of Scotland. I have no problem with the idea that Scotland has several languages with extremely long histories, rich heritages, etc. I just have a problem with the view that Gaelic is somehow 'our' language in a way in which Scots is not.

"I also think that the "we never spoke it" argument is a little silly unless one has a family tree to hand for the last 1,500 years. The Lowland population is extremely mixed, and many (most?) people have Highland or Irish blood or both."

Yeah, this is a fair point. :-)

Maca said:

"Where? In Ireland or Scotland. We're only talking about Ireland here. The issue of Scots is up to the British, nothing to do with this thread really."

The issue is not up to the British alone, since the Irish Government is party to an international treaty with the UK dealing with the cross-border promotion of the Scots language in Ireland.

We used to have Latin as the one European language. Now we have English, like it or not, it's the only modern day international language. So never mind Irish, we are wasting money translating things into the other 22 tonuges

"We used to have Latin as the one European language. Now we have English, like it or not, it's the only modern day international language. So never mind Irish, we are wasting money translating things into the other 22 tonuges "

DCB,
that is such an Anglo-centric attitude. Are you another person who only has proficiency in one language? Pride in ignorance is a pitiful trait. I recommend you try talking to people in their native language. You'll understand them a lot better.

Why should the eurozone have English as its language when only 1% speak English as their first language while nearly half its GDP is made up from German speaking countries and over a quarter of its population speak German?

German is the logical choice. Are you so disconnected from Europe that you can't appreciate this?

Why should the eurozone have English as its language when only 1% speak English as their first language while nearly half its GDP is made up from German speaking countries and over a quarter of its population speak German?

What % of Europe's external markets speak German and what % speak English ? America ? Asia ?

Hi George,

"Pride in ignorance is a pitiful trait"

Bit condescending don't you think George. Some might consider that standardisation is a prerequisite for progress. Examples would include nuts, bolts, video, computer components, etc, etc...

"German is the logical choice"

Nonsense! English is de facto the European language. All we need for progress is to have a common European language and stop wasting money translating documents into languages that no one will ever read. Already most Universities are heading towards teaching in English...

Can all the Gaels get down off their high horses on this one, please? This measure won't have any beneficial effect on the status of the Irish language, but it will help Sean O Neachtain.

I'm living within a few miles of a Gaeltacht and I support any practical measure to nuture and strenghten the Irish language in these places, but this is a nonsense. Sean O Neachtain is an Irish teacher when not a MEP, not a native Irish speaker. His constituency contains the gaeltachtai of Donegal, Connemara and Mayo and that is his motivation.

It is things like this that play directly into the hands of the anti-EU brigade, as Christopter said - This is a shameful waste of money and demonstrates the pandering nature of the EU

and for once he's dead right.

Promote Irish in Beal an Daingean where it is for real, not Brussels.

Congal,
it's condescending of English speakers to expect people to speak English because they don't have another language.

"English is de facto the European language." Having lived there half my adult life, I can tell you that's absolute rubbish. Maybe among a small cabal or at upper management level with US corporates but not in everyday business life.

Only 1% of the eurozone have English as their first language but English speakers expect the other 99% to use English rather than getting up off their arses and learning a second language. That to me is totally condescending and a pitiful trait. The figures speak for German.

Ringo,
this isn't a gesture to promote or develop the Irish language, it's affording a right to people who want to use the Irish language in their business. Don't confuse the two.

Chris
"The issue is not up to the British alone, since the Irish Government is party to an international treaty with the UK dealing with the cross-border promotion of the Scots language in Ireland."

That's Ulster Scots not Scots ;)
I highlighted another important point there. I don't think Ireland has even signed the EC charter in respect of U-Scots ... ?



"Some might consider that standardisation is a prerequisite for progress. Examples would include nuts, bolts, video, computer components, etc, etc.."

Some might be wrong. Standardisation only exists to certain degrees even in Europe and it certainly isn't a prerequisute for progress.

'it's affording a right to people who want to use the Irish language in their business'

No it isn't, that's just fluff. I have no problem with the provision of forms 'as gaeilge' e.g. for farmers dealing with their CAP or the like. But they don't put a stamp on these and sent then to Brussels, they go to the Dept of Agriculture.

There is no reason why anyone can't be provided with all the facilities to conduct their business through Irish - with the Irish government taking responsibility. This is just a cop out where the Fianna Fail are seen to have pushed through some token gesture that they can wave around at the next election. And best of all - it cost them nothing!

Maca:

"That's Ulster Scots not Scots ;)
I highlighted another important point there. I don't think Ireland has even signed the EC charter in respect of U-Scots ... ?"

I assume that you were joking. The Irish Government defines Ulster Scots only as a "variety of the Scots language", in an international treaty with the UK.

The UK Government may have more than one definition depending on how one interprets the Council of Europe (not EC) Charter. If the UK Government has defined Ulster Scots as a language in the charter, it is in serious breach of an international treaty with the Irish Republic.

Needless to say, Ulster Scots is linguistically a form of Scots and differs from dialects in Scotland only in the same way as Hiberno-English differs from English dialects in England. "Hiberno-Scots" is the most descriptive term linguistically.

"Ulster Scots" has the same case as any other variety of Scots for language status vis-a-vis English, but no case at all vis-a-vis Scots. The only element always different is the accent. The differences between Conamara and Donegal Irish are probably greater. If Ulster Scots is a language, Ulster Gaelic and Hiberno-English are languages too.

Ringo,
it has the support of the Irish language community as a whole under Stádas, which comprises of representatives from Conradh na Gaeilge, Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, Gaelscoileanna, Comhar na Múinteoirí Gaeilge, FIONTAR, Oideas Gael agus Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann as well as others.

Many regretted they hadn't campaigned for it years ago and felt a great opportunity was missed to gain this recognition. But then the door opened.

It also brings us back in line with our constitution as well and offers the chance of well-paid jobs to proficient Irish speakers.

Irish speakers don't see any negatives in this and they are the ones that matter here.

George

I would say that it was you being eurocentric rather than me being anglo-centric.

Latan was once the international language of the world and now through accidents of history it is english. I don't think we are superiour for it, it's just the way the world is.

When I pick up the phone and speak to people in Indai, China, Africa, I do not speak German

I saw an add in the FT the other day for a Belgium bank looking for traders for their Paris office. The add said "English essential, French usefull"

Ringo - spot on, seeing Irish spoken is what gives it life. Wasting tax payers money just breeds cynicism

George -

DCB just stole my thunder: the only thing this will achieve is to spend EU money on an issue that the Irish govenment has paid lip service to all along and breed cynicism.

Of course all the Irish Language bodies are in favour of it! But what do Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eireann have to do with it? You might as well put your own name in Irish and add it to the list for all the relevance they have to the debate.

These bodies are stalwarts of the Irish Language industry. Question- how many of these bodies have their headquarters in a Gaeltacht? None, that I am aware of.

None of these organistations are businesses, yet you claim 'it's affording a right to people who want to use the Irish language in their business'.
There is a significant difference between providing for the needs of elderly farmers/ fishermen in the gaeltachts and feathering the nests of these Gaelgoaucrats in Dublin.

I haven't heard the IFA or the Irish Fishermans Organisation declaring that this will improve the livelihoods of their members? The lads in Udaras are probably too busy playing golf to comment at all...

DCB,
it's not eurocentric, it's merely looking at the economic facts for the eurozone.

From Jan-Aug 2004 exports outside the eurozone accounted for 746 billion while intra-eurozone trade accounted for 764 billion euros.
Exports outside the EU were only 626 billion.

You see, the majority of our business is within the eurozone where 99% don't have English as the first language.

Exports to the US were 101 bilion out of 764 billion and for that we are expected to use English as the official language? Trade to the rest of non-EU Europe was 160 billion.

Makes no business sense. As I said, you are being very anglocentric.
The UK exported 2% less to the eurozone in this period than in 2003 so if anything British people should start learning a European language or they will keep losing business.

Britain's trade with the EU has edged down from 23.2% of GDP in 1998 to 22.8% in 2001.

Ringo
"the only thing this will achieve is to spend EU money on an issue that the Irish govenment has paid lip service to all along and breed cynicism."

It's a move that speakers of Irish wanted and felt was necessary. If a section of the English speaking population is cynical about it then that's their problem. You can't blame the Irish speaking community for ensuring they get recognition of their rights.

In their business should have probably have read "everyday business" for clarity. As I said earlier in this thread, the EU is more and more prevalent in our lives and the most important thing about a language is to be able to use it in your everyday life.

People will have more and more dealings with EU institutions and now they can conduct these dealings through Irish. It's a tiny amount of money for a large amount of recognition.

Why do you resent a tiny Irish language bureaucracy so much. To put things in perspective, the entire Irish budget for 2005 is 43.5 billion. Peanuts for something that means an awful lot to between two and three hundred thousand Irish people.

why on earth would we have English as our common language in the euro zone when only 1% speak English (Irish Republic) as their first language?

Simple answer - so the Greeks can talk to the Finns.

Also, Irish is not the same as Breton, Catalan, etc. It can become an official language because it is a national official language, they are not.

Another major benefit for those with Irish:
Whenever job opportunities with EU
institutions arise, these are open to EU
citizens who can speak 2 (or more) official EU
languages. Irish citizens with Irish applying for such jobs are disadvantaged as Irish is disregarded.

Young Fogey

That's exactly why.

For the internal european market we need one currency and one language, and it ain't French or German.

Even French bankers speak English.

Plus the future is in the Pacific rim, China is where it will be all at. No prizes for guesing what language they do a lot of their dealings in.

George

I stand corrected, sir!

Fogey,
Have a look at what is happening in Europe and the eurozone in particular.

Finland's largest trading partner? You got it Germany. Over half of its trade is within the EU.

Greece's largest trading partner?
Surprise, surprise, yep it's Germany again and over 40% of its exports are to the EU.

No bother Chris, I've moved on to the defence of German now :-)

ah George, you've raised another reason why I am uncomfortable with this:

Another major benefit for those with Irish:
Whenever job opportunities with EU institutions arise, these are open to EU citizens who can speak 2 (or more) official EU languages. Irish citizens with Irish applying for such jobs are disadvantaged as Irish is disregarded.

The reason they need 2 is so that they can talk to people from elsewhere in the EU. If Irish is counted as among those 2 they won't be able to, cause they'll have Irish and English and to all intents and purposes they might as well just have English.

This will reduce communication within the EU, make it more difficult..

Tell that the Slovenes idunnomyself.
Irish is entitled to be an EU language because it is a national language. You can't discriminate based on the size of the national language pool.

I accept there could be a working language pool of five major languages, say German, French, Italian, Spanish and English.

Finland's largest trading partner? You got it Germany. Over half of its trade is within the EU.

Greece's largest trading partner?
Surprise, surprise, yep it's Germany again and over 40% of its exports are to the EU.

Ay, but the trade is still done in English a lot of the time.

Both Young Fogey and I are German speakers and would stand to gain significantly from your policy, but I'm with him on this one!!!

I accept there could be a working language pool of five major languages, say German, French, Italian, Spanish and English.

You accuse others of being 'Anglo-Centric', but this is a blatantly 'occo-centric' attitude! What about Polish, for example?

The trouble with this debate is that it is too often seen in absolutes.

The truth is that free trade leads to free movement leads to common standards - including definitions, measurements, currencies and, yes, languages. English, or at least a 'eurocratic' variety of it, will grow as the pan-European language not because of any law, but because that's what the people have decided. And, much like common definitions, measurements and currencies, it's no bad thing - indeed, it is inevitable.

However, that means that English will be used in specific fields of communication - bureaucracy, high-level international trade, science and so on. This will make no difference to its level of use socially, in the home or down the community club. In such contexts, the appropriate regional or national language will still be selected.

Those who seek to block both the maintenance of the vernacular and local level and the growth of a single language (namely English) at international level are flying in the face of progress.

Hoch lebe Europa!

well a slovene could speak slovene and German, say, and will therefore be able to communicate with more people because they have 2 official languages.

Someone with Irish and English might as well just have English frankly.

Previously an applicant would have needed English and (say) French- much more useful to the EU

Re Finland & German
"Ay, but the trade is still done in English a lot of the time."

The Finns have often chosen German as their foreign language above English.
The only reason English is gaining ground is music/movies/playstation. ;)

IJP,
I considered Polish but plumped for Spanish as it is also spoken in South America. The other four are in on the merit of being the largest economies by far.
However, I would be in favour of adding a Slav language so maybe make it six working languages.

As for doing business, you and Young Fogey seem to believe that all business is done in English, or even worse, can be done in English which simply isn't the case.

I speak German as well and have had a lot of dealings with German companies. In fact, I work for one now.
Many businesses are finding using English has been detrimental in maintaining their market share there and are now employing Germans or German speakers and setting up offices in the local market to combat this.

To simply say English is the business language is a recipe for disaster. People like to negotiate deals in their own language.

Dare I risk expressing a wee bit of concern that this thread now has nearly twice as many posts as the one on child poverty?!

George

simply say English is the business language is a recipe for disaster. People like to negotiate deals in their own language.

They do. But where the languages diverge, English is almost always selected (even where neither party speaks it as a mother tongue).

The ultimate example of this is air-traffic control. Where English is not used, the resultant confusion is often fatal (as with one accident at Paris-Orly a couple of years back), so this is an example of where English, unquestionably, should be used.

In short, there is a world language, it is English, that aids international communication, and that is a good thing. But that is not the same as suggesting that everyone should speak English in all contexts. The opposite is often true.

I agree with your underlying implication that the standard of English is nothing like as high elsewhere as many of us think.

"I agree with your underlying implication that the standard of English is nothing like as high elsewhere as many of us think."

I sometimes wonder if what is spoken is English at all. Dealing as I do with folk from many countries there are varying skill levels, even in English speaking countries and often the "english" used is some sort of creole language.

English is definitly becoming the world language I just hope people don't forget that a language can be used for much more than simply communication. Hense the need to protect our minority languages.

Useless bit of info for you, the amount of english speakers using the internet has dropped over the years, current estimate 35% (Global Reach).

Also, according to National Geographic "the percentage of the global population that grew up speaking English as its first language is declining." "The status of English as a global language may peak soon," English in Decline as a First Language.

Agreed entirely, Maca.

You'll have noticed my 'disclaimer' above:

English, or at least a 'eurocratic' variety of it...

"The status of English as a global language may peak soon," English in Decline as a First Language."

Gawd, the Atlantic crowd.

All those Mandarin speakers are stuck so damned far back in the dingleberries that they have to pipe the sunshine in. When you come calling around my ocean to do business or steal technology you speak English.

The Geographic should stick to nikkid pichers.

"When you come calling around my ocean to do business or steal technology you speak English."

Hardly a choice there James as yer all monoglots ;-))

You betcha. Even those wee lads taking the English (Yank version) accent classes in Bangalore so they can guide those of you who cannot RTFMS when your software drills a hole in the ground. You are in good hands.

Trust me.

LOL ;))

George -

It's a move that speakers of Irish wanted and felt was necessary

What Irish speakers? you cannot descibe the Dublin-based Irish language industry as the target audience for this movement. My point is that unless this significantly improved the lives of people in the Gaeltacht (as opposed to giving the empolyees of a few language bodies a warm fuzzy feeling of satisfation) then it is pointless.

To put things in perspective, the entire Irish budget for 2005 is 43.5 billion. Peanuts for something that means an awful lot to between two and three hundred thousand Irish people.

Once again- if they are serious about growing the use of the Irish language you don't do it by putting your efforts into the centre of Belgium, or Dublin for that matter. I have no objection to the Irish government spending the same amount of money on programs in Kerry, Galway or Donegal.

Two things - 1) the size of the Irish budget is irrelevant to this argument because this is EU money. I'd have no problem if we were using Irish money, then the government would be forced in to a proper debate; at the moment it is a 'freebie' as far as the public are concerned.
2) This will only benefit Irish language graduates, not Irish language speakers.

test

It will mean jobs for 110 translators fluent in the language, who can earn up to €85,000 a year interpreting speakers in the parliament and translating all decisions made in the EU into Irish.

What is the purpose of translating all decisions made in the EU into Gaelic? Is there any demand for this? Would it not be better to translate on an "on request" basis? It would save millions and any Gaelic-speakers who wanted to read these decisions would still be able to do so.

"What is the purpose of translating all decisions made in the EU into Gaelic?"

They are not translating them into Gaelic Willow, but into Irish.

"Would it not be better to translate on an "on request" basis?"

Definitly. Waste of money translating everything.
I wonder what wait would be involved though, if one had to request a translation...

"It would save millions and any Gaelic-speakers who wanted to read these decisions would still be able to do so."

Most Gaelic speakers, even if they manage to get access to the Irish translations, might find it awkward to read the Irish translations anyway.


;)

Without wishing to be cheeky, will it not mean that many new words in Irish will have to be invented ?

I don't see wht Davros. Perhaps a few but i'd say a tiny tiny number if any at all.

Maca- all the Euro-Jargon e.g Was there a word for "subsidiarity" ?

"Was there a word for "subsidiarity" ?"

That's a new word for me in English, never mind Irish ;)
But since Irish has been a Treaty language and many documents are already translated on a regular basis perhaps there won't be so many such cases. ??
I'm sure every language has the same problem.

maca

They are not translating them into Gaelic Willow, but into Irish.

What's the difference, and why will they be translating them? Will many Gaelic- or Irish-speakers read them? Is there any demand?

Definitly. Waste of money translating everything. I wonder what wait would be involved though, if one had to request a translation...

Presumably it would depend on the length of the document?

"It would save millions and any Gaelic-speakers who wanted to read these decisions would still be able to do so."

Most Gaelic speakers, even if they manage to get access to the Irish translations, might find it awkward to read the Irish translations anyway.

Why?

Ringo,
it is a rights issue, not an Irish language development issue. Its aim is not to improve "the lives of people in the Gaeltacht" but to afford Irish speakers the same rights as English speakers when it comes to dealings with the EU. Nothing more, nothing less. Why do people continue to confuse the two?

"Once again- if they are serious about growing the use of the Irish language you don't do it by putting your efforts into the centre of Belgium, or Dublin for that matter. I have no objection to the Irish government spending the same amount of money on programs in Kerry, Galway or Donegal."

Let them. This is nothing to do with growing the language. Separate issue.

"1) the size of the Irish budget is irrelevant to this argument because this is EU money."
We'll be paying into the EU (maybe not the exact amount, maybe more) so to say we aren't paying isn't actually true.

By the way, over half of all the EU money we got over the years went to farmers who make up around 3% of GDP down south. That's a waste of money. Don't hear the DUP farmers moaning about this waste.

"2) This will only benefit Irish language graduates, not Irish language speakers."

This will benefit all those who want to exercise their constitutional right to use Irish in their everyday business if they so wish.

This is why it has the support of the Irish language community as a whole under Stádas, which comprises of representatives from Conradh na Gaeilge, Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, Gaelscoileanna, Comhar na Múinteoirí Gaeilge, FIONTAR, Oideas Gael agus Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann as well as others.

Willow
"What's the difference, and why will they be translating them? Will many Gaelic- or Irish-speakers read them? Is there any demand?

Well ... aren't the documents translated into all official languages?
Demand - some yes, but how much I don't know.

"Presumably it would depend on the length of the document?"

In part. Might depend on other things, available resources, management, red tape, who knows..

"It would save millions and any Gaelic-speakers who wanted to read these decisions would still be able to do so."

"Why?"

Because Gaelic is different enough from Standard Irish so as to cause problems. Most Irish speakers would have some difficulty with Gaelic.

George -
it is a rights issue, not an Irish language development issue./i>

Oh Gawd, here we go....

Rights. This is butchering the concept of rights and does everyone a diservice. If there is a need to enshrine someones right to do or have something it generally means that they are being demeaned, discriminated or inhibited from living their life in a dignified fashion.

Its aim is not to improve "the lives of people in the Gaeltacht" but to afford Irish speakers the same rights as English speakers when it comes to dealings with the EU
What you are talking about is a luxury not a right - It would be nice for Irish speakers to be able to conduct their business in Irish, but it won't improve their life. A bit like getting a DVD player to replace the VCR.

Ringo,
Irish is a national language, which is a necessity if a language is the be an official EU language. Catalan, Welsh etc. are not.
The right of an Irish citizen to use it is enshrined in the Irish constitution. It is not a luxury as you seem to think.

What other parts of the Irish constitution do you consider a luxury?

If you don't like it, launch a campaign to have it reduced to "luxury" status by means of a referendum.

Hmmm - looks to me like this boils down to reluctance by some to accept that membership of the EU means that the Irish Constitution is no longer supreme and that power now resides in Brussels.

maca

Well ... aren't the documents translated into all official languages? Demand - some yes, but how much I don't know.

Yes. But other official languages - English, French, German, etc. - are actually spoken by more than a handful of people! There is, presumably, sufficient ongoing demand for documents to be read in these languages. I suspect there is virtually nil demand for these documents to be read in Gaelic.

In part. Might depend on other things, available resources, management, red tape, who knows..

That could be overcome at much less cost than providing an army of translators to translate every single decision regardless of whether anyone is going to ever read it or not.

Because Gaelic is different enough from Standard Irish so as to cause problems. Most Irish speakers would have some difficulty with Gaelic.

But Irish and Gaelic are the same thing! When I refer to Gaelic I mean the language that you call Irish.

Now now George - as you well know Bunreacht na hEireann is not an EU document. I have no quarrel with the status of Irish in our constitution, but this is completely different from its status in the EU.

What other parts of the Irish constitution do you consider a luxury?
The luxury is attributing 'offical EU Language' status to Irish. It already has official status as the first language in the only territory in the EU where it is spoken.

What you are suggesting is that we should have the right to everything in Bunreacht na hEireann, everywhere in the EU.

Now now George - as you well know Bunreacht na hEireann is not an EU document. I have no quarrel with the status of Irish in our constitution, but this is completely different from its status in the EU.

What other parts of the Irish constitution do you consider a luxury?
The luxury is attributing 'offical EU Language' status to Irish. It already has official status as the first language in the only territory in the EU where it is spoken.

What you are suggesting is that we should have the right to everything in Bunreacht na hEireann, everywhere in the EU.

Ringo,
making Irish an official EU language brings us back in line with our constitution. I have no problem with this.

"What you are suggesting is that we should have the right to everything in Bunreacht na hEireann, everywhere in the EU."

No what I am saying ist that we have more and more dealings with EU institutions in our lives and this move will mean that Irish speakers in Ireland can use the Irish language in their dealings.

George

Would it not be more sensible for documents to be translated into Gaelic on request?

Why waste money translating screeds of material that no Gaelic-speaker is ever going to look at?

Willow
"Yes. But other official languages - English, French, German, etc. - are actually spoken by more than a handful of people! There is, presumably, sufficient ongoing demand for documents to be read in these languages. I suspect there is virtually nil demand for these documents to be read in Gaelic."

It's all relative really. How many Estonians are actually going to read EU documents? There's little demand there, and they could probably manage with the Finnish versions (albeit with a some degree of difficulty).
Surely most Europeans who are likely to read these documents could manage with the English verison?

"That could be overcome at much less cost than providing an army of translators to translate every single decision regardless of whether anyone is going to ever read it or not."

True. See my 01:55pm.

"But Irish and Gaelic are the same thing!"

They are not the same. I'm not going to go over the same ground again.


Ringo
I know you've cúpla focal yourself, and for all I know could be a native speaker but from what i've been reading recently a serious problem with the Irish language, particularly in Gaeltacht regions is it's status in the eyes of the people. It's always been treated as an inferior language, as a less worthy language than English. This is embedded in the physche of many native speakers. Part of the reason perhaps why all young Gaeilgeoir speak English amongst themselves rather than their first language.
For me this issue is about respect (as George mentioned). Irish IS the first language for many people and it should be treated as an equal of English. Whether this needs to be done in this way or at international level is debatable.
If Irish way my first language I think it'd only be fair and right to get services/documents/whatever in my language. Whether I can manage in another language or not is irrelevant.

'cuse the ramble...

Willowfield,
half baked solution. Either it's an official language or not.

maca

It's all relative really. How many Estonians are actually going to read EU documents?

More than the number of Gaelic-speakers! There are over 1m Estonian-speakers compared to a few thousand Irish Gaelic-speakers at most. I suspect lots of government officials would have to read them. Government officials in the ROI all speak English.

Surely most Europeans who are likely to read these documents could manage with the English verison?

I don't know. Possibly. Certainly makes more sense than translating them into a language that no-one wants to read them in!

They are not the same. I'm not going to go over the same ground again.

In this context, they are!

George

half baked solution. Either it's an official language or not.

It's not "half-baked": it's perfectly sensible.

Tell me what's the point of translating a screed of documents into Gaelic if no sinner's going to look at them? Completely barmy and a shameful waste of money.

Willowfield,
firstly there's the time delay. I want access but I have to wait until someone has put in an application for a translator. Having worked in the translation business I can tell you this could take weeks.

Why should an Irish speaker have to wait while others don't. It's a national language and we are within our rights to ask for this.

If the people of Ireland want to remove its status by a referendum, then fine, but at the moment it has this status.
Personally, I don't see such a referendum passing.

George

firstly there's the time delay. I want access but I have to wait until someone has put in an application for a translator. Having worked in the translation business I can tell you this could take weeks.

Not a reasonable complaint. There is no urgency involved in European decisions. If you read it on Thursday instead of Tuesday it isn't going to matter. And it's certainly not worth spending millions on an army of translators on the off-chance that some Gaelic-speaker might want to read an EU decision on the same day that it is made.

If you employ 2 or 3, they could easily cope with demand and have the thing translated within 24 hours.

Why should an Irish speaker have to wait while others don't.

Because it's criminally expensive to provide an automatic translation service, given the demand to read the documents (probably nil), and it's not sufficiently important to be able to read decisions instantly.

It's even more absurd when you consider there are millions more speakers of Asian languages in the EU who won't have access to translated documents, Catalan speakers, Breton speakers, etc.

It's a national language and we are within our rights to ask for this.

You can ask for whatever you want: but it's not a reasonable request and should be refused.

If the people of Ireland want to remove its status by a referendum, then fine, but at the moment it has this status.

No-one's claiming otherwise.

Willowfield,
Catalan, Breton etc. are not national languages and therefore are not comparable to Irish in this discussion as they can't apply for this status.

You are predicating linguistic status on numbers using it. Cultural primacy at its worst. The frightening thing is you, as a member of an "elite" lanaguage group, don't even seem to realise it.

This request won't be refused because fortunately the rest of Europe is more aware.

As for criminal waste. 10 million as opposed to the billions upon billions pumped in to farming subsidies in the last 3 decades. No comparison.

Stop the cash to the North Antrim spongers.

"few thousand Irish Gaelic-speakers at most"

Arse.
As usual Willow, please do some research then we can discuss the issue.

Catalan, Breton etc. are not national languages

Hmmm - that sounds mighty chauvinistic, along the lines of Elizabethan English attitudes towards Irish ;)
Catalan , Breton and Basque nationalists would surely disagree with you there George !

George -
I think Willowfield's suggestion is perfectly acceptable. You have already declared that the aim of this it to allow Irish speakers to carry out their EU business in their first language, thereby granting them the same rights as the English speaker next door. If they are provided with the facility for this to happen doesn't that satisfy you criteria?

Well, it doesn't because as your reply to Willowfield implies, it is the notion of official recognition, not any practical application that would acrue from that recognition that you are really interested in.

Why do you want this recognition? Just because other people have it? Thats the same logic that the Ulster Scots people use.

Maca -
I take your point about pride in the language, but in terms of fostering the language and making it more attractive to young people, Hector and the pretty weather girl on TG4 have done more for giving Irish a bit of credibility than this measure ever would. Imagine giving a child the Nice Treaty as Gaeilge and saying, 'aren't we cool now'? Official status will not bring respect, just cynicism.

BTW, I actually went to the trouble of filling out my passport application last year in Irish and the Guard who had to sign it said he'd never come across anyone doing that before. And he was no spring chicken.

Davros - it doesn't have anything to do with the primacy of the EU law over Irish law. Just because it doesn't have offical status in Europe doesn't impact on its status in Ireland. And as I've been arguing, its status in the EU legislation has no impact on its status as a living language.

Straight forward question for George and Maca -
why is this necessary?

Ringo,
If they are provided with the same facility, then I am satisfied.
If they are provided with a second class service because in the eyes of some cultural primacists it is a second class language due to the numbers speaking it, I am not satisfied.

Is it necessary? Irish speakers believe it is as evidenced by the strong campaign and they are the ones that count here.
Respect sometimes also means accepting what a person in the know believes is necessary for their ongoing cultural welfare rather than imposing what you, coming from the dominant culture, believe would make more sense. The "they all speak English anyway" type of argument is beneath contempt.

What price respect? For me the price is low and we'll have to see what benefits accrue. A simple one is that people who love the language can now do Irish safe in the knowledge that it will also be of use in any future European career.

George - It's a national language and we are within our rights to ask for this.

If the people of Ireland want to remove its status by a referendum, then fine, but at the moment it has this status.

Your logic is that National Language = EU Official Language. So are you saying that if the EU says it is not to be an EU Language then it shouldn't be a National language and we need to remove it from the constitution? It is not an all or nothing situation.

Straight forward question for George and Maca -
why is this whole EU recognition thing necessary?

And don't give me that 'because it is within our rights to have it' nonsense.

For me it's just about respect.

The book "Who needs Irish?" (thanks Dav) gives a very good insight into the mind of a native Irish speaker, some of the info there would really add a lot to this discussion as it's very relevant. If I have time later I might post a few lines.

There's also the battle going on - emotion vs logic, the emotional desire to see the language thrive and get the respect it deserves vs the logic of spending money on a language which few currently speak. Neither side is right or wrong.

George

Catalan, Breton etc. are not national languages and therefore are not comparable to Irish in this discussion as they can't apply for this status.

I couldn't give a monkey's about whether or not they are “national languages”. I was simply making the point that there are more Catalan speakers, or speakers of Asian languages in the EU than Irish Gaelic-speakers.

You are predicating linguistic status on numbers using it. Cultural primacy at its worst. The frightening thing is you, as a member of an "elite" lanaguage group, don't even seem to realise it.

I’m simply pointing out the stupidity and the sheer waste of money in spending millions of pounds translating documents into a language for which there is probably zero demand! I’ve offered a solution that still provides documents in Gaelic to people who want to read them in Gaelic (if there are any). The only difference might be a 24-hour time delay. Big deal.

As for criminal waste. 10 million as opposed to the billions upon billions pumped in to farming subsidies in the last 3 decades. No comparison.

Farming subsidies may be wasteful. That does not excuse waste in other areas.

Stop the cash to the North Antrim spongers.

That reads like a sectarian comment. Should farm subsidies be stopped to unionist areas but retained for nationalist areas?

maca

Arse. As usual Willow, please do some research then we can discuss the issue.

You’re telling me more than a few thousand people have Gaelic as their first language?? Go on: how many, then?

Sorry for the question repeated above - the time delay thing caught me.

George -
Fair enough, if they get the same level of service as anyone else then that's fine. Agreed

Respect sometimes also means accepting what a person in the know believes is necessary for their ongoing cultural welfare rather than imposing what you, coming from the dominant culture, believe would make more sense.

I don't buy the idea that there is a massive demand for EU documents in Irish. Like I said earlier, if the people who would have the strongest Irish and weakest English such as farmers and fishermen on the western seaboard
were significalntly put out you can be absolutely certain that the IFA and the IFO would make sure everyone in the country was aware of the issue.

And EU documentation is about as far removed from culture as it gets so cultural welfare doesn't come into it.

It's a book that I would encourage people- speakers, aspirant speakers and especially those hostile to the language to read Maca.

Maca-
There's also the battle going on - emotion vs logic, the emotional desire to see the language thrive and get the respect it deserves vs the logic of spending money on a language which few currently speak.
don't get me wrong, as I said at the top of the thread, I have no problem regarding spending money on Irish, but I would much rather it spent fostering the language where Irish is spoken not as a token gesture in Brussels. If the Irish government was to pay for this instead of the EU then you would have a proper debate on whether the money could be better put to use in other ways to improve the status of the language. But this is a cheap cop out that costs them nothing. I'd much rather have it spent on TG4.

I'm off for my siesta, but I'll share a poem before I go. We were talking about Burntollet the other day , I think it was on slugger, and I remembered reading this a few years ago. John Hewitt at his caustic best on the Unionist mindset in the 60's. An excellent site.

An Ulster Landowner's Song

I'm Major This or Captain That,
MC and DSO.
This Orange Lily in my hat
I sometimes wear for show,

so long as I can walk my dogs
around the old estate,
and keep the Fenians in their bogs,
the peasants at the gate.

I meet my tenants, decent men,
in Lodge, on market day,
and all seems safe till, now and then,
they start a small affray.

They stirred up an unwelcome noise,
it set my nerves on edge,
that day they beat those girls and boys
across Burntollet Bridge,

with journalists and cameras there
to send in their reports.
The world no longer seems to care
for healthy country sports.

(1969)

Willowfield,
I could also say cut the cash to the Leitrim spongers or Meath spongers. All the same to me but I decided on the rural part of NI most famous for farming. These guys are the biggers money wasters on this island (over half of all EU money ever) but never a whimper from any party.

A couple of million goes on Irish language status which could be of benefit to up to 300,000 people and everyone is up in arms.

How do you know there would be only a delay of 24 hours? On what do you base this assumption?
As I said, I have worked in the field of translation and am a qualified translator so can tell you from experience of vendor management that it is not simple to find people at short notice.
You have to have them on permanent retainers to guarantee same day delivery so the cost would probably be more for a much inferior service.

Also, why should Irish speakers get an inferior service because there are less of them? Cultural primacy again.

Ringo,
we'll find out about the demand in the coming years but it's not just about demand. For example, it means your ability to speak Irish counts when looking for employment with an EU body. This is what the status is also about.
And don't confuse language development with language rights. This issue is about the latter.

Willowfield/Maca -

regarding official numbers-

The CSO 2002 Census report regarding Irish (pg 27)

In more detail

According to this there are about 340,000 people in the state aged 3 or over who speak Irish on a daily basis - I can't find a figure which tells us how many of these speak Irish more than English though, must it is probably here.

George

I could also say cut the cash to the Leitrim spongers or Meath spongers. All the same to me but I decided on the rural part of NI most famous for farming. These guys are the biggers money wasters on this island (over half of all EU money ever) but never a whimper from any party.

As I said, the fact that money is allegedly wasted on farm subsidies is no argument for further waste on pointless translations that no-one needs.

A couple of million goes on Irish language status which could be of benefit to up to 300,000 people and everyone is up in arms.

"Could" benefit "up to" 300,000? What does that mean? In reality it probably means nobody.

A couple of million? The article says 10!

How do you know there would be only a delay of 24 hours? On what do you base this assumption?

On the assumption that it would take about a day to translate a decision.

As I said, I have worked in the field of translation and am a qualified translator so can tell you from experience of vendor management that it is not simple to find people at short notice. You have to have them on permanent retainers to guarantee same day delivery so the cost would probably be more for a much inferior service.

Well, pay someone on a retainer - it's not going to cost 10m - not even going to cost "a couple of million"!

Also, why should Irish speakers get an inferior service because there are less of them? Cultural primacy again.

The "inferior" service means they have to wait a day, or 2 days longer than an English-speaker in order to read an EU decision. Big deal. It's not sufficiently "inferior" to merit wasting millions of taxpayers money to rectify. Tokenism at its worst.

If you're really worried about people suffering an "inferior" service, what about the millions of Chinese speakers who wouldn't get a translation full stop, never mind after a 24 hour wait.

Nobody's going to want to look at the decisions in Gaelic, anyway.

Ringo/maca

According to this there are about 340,000 people in the state aged 3 or over who speak Irish on a daily basis - I can't find a figure which tells us how many of these speak Irish more than English though, must it is probably here.

"Speaking Irish on a daily basis" might mean saying "hello" to someone in the corner shop and speaking English for the rest of the day. Or it might mean speaking it in the school Irish class for 40 minutes and speaking English for the rest of the day.

What we need is the figure for people for whom Gaelic is their first language.

Willowfield,
there is no valid or acceptable reason why an Irish speaker should have to wait longer than other Europeans when doing business with the EU or looking for an answer to a query using an official national language.

That's the basis on which I work and I would say the same for Slovenes, Slovaks and everyone else. You obviously believe in tiering cultures, languages and people according to what you consider their worthiness, or should that be wordiness.

The 10 million is a tiny amount to pay and this money will go to Irish speakers to use their language so it's not a waste either.

Why are you worrying so much about whether one of our two national languages should also have official EU status? You live in Objective One status land and will do for the forseeable future so it won't affect you either way.

George

there is no valid or acceptable reason why an Irish speaker should have to wait longer than other Europeans when doing business with the EU or looking for an answer to a query using an official national language.

There are both valid and acceptable reasons: the fact that it would cost millions to provide the service for maybe 1 or 2 people (if any at all), and the fact that there is no disadvantage in waiting a day to get the document.

That's the basis on which I work and I would say the same for Slovenes, Slovaks and everyone else. You obviously believe in tiering cultures, languages and people according to what you consider their worthiness, or should that be wordiness.

It's nothing to do with "tiering cultures". It's all about good sense and sensible public spending. There's no significant disadvantage in getting a document on Wednesday instead of Monday. And to spend millions of euro on ensuring the document is available on Monday is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money.

It makes more sense for Slovaks and Slovenes as there will be genuine demand in those languages, unlike Gaelic.

The 10 million is a tiny amount to pay and this money will go to Irish speakers to use their language so it's not a waste either.

So this is all about creating unnecessary jobs for Gaelic-speakers? Have you let the cat out of the bag? Is this the true purpose?

10 million per year is not a tiny amount.

Why are you worrying so much about whether one of our two national languages should also have official EU status? You live in Objective One status land and will do for the forseeable future so it won't affect you either way.

I'm not worrying about it. I'm discussing the merits of it. Seems like a terrible waste of money to me. Where I live and whether it has Objective 1 status or not is irrelevant. Nice attempt to change the subject: you obviously realise your argument is unreasonable.

(Also, Objective 1 status ends in 2007, and I can foresee 2008, therefore I won't be living in it for the foreseeable future.)

Posted by: George at December 2, 2004

Willowfield,
How can you guarantee same day service? You've never worked in the business but offer same day translation guaranteed! Sorry but you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think there are that many competent translators going around who you can call up at the drop of a hat. It's hard enough gettting decent German ones. 10 million to translate all is a decent price and you'd be hard pressed to get it cheaper.

Also, it's not a waste of money because it is employing people to do a job that Irish language speakers - tax payers as well you know - say they want and need.

Also, you say one or two people. Why don't you wait and see how much it is accessed? What makes you think only 1 or 2 out of a potential 300,000 would take up the option? You're slowly falling into the language fascism that is "sure they can use English".

My argument is not unreasonable, I was merely pointing out that the tiny cost will be borne by us anyway, one way or the other.
Also of that 10 million, nearly half would go back into the system through tax and VAT. It's a pittance.

The Republic is spending 36 billion in the next three years on capital investment alone for example. This is a cultural investment and as such is hard to quantify in monetary terms. Wait and see Willowfield before passing judgement.

The PSNI recently confirmed that just 12 members of the public visit the Rosemount police station every year. The annual cost of running the station is £275,000 (€400,000) or 33,000 euros a visit.

Willowfield -
That figure isn't available from any reliable source.

unless its here - the report from the Gaeltacht commission.

There are 60,000 people over the age of 19 who speak Irish daily in the Gaeltacht. These people can reliably be expected to carry out much of their day to day business in an Irish speaking environment. Outside of teachers and employees of Irish language bodies, nobody else in the country does so.

George -
My argument is not unreasonable, I was merely pointing out that the tiny cost will be borne by us anyway, one way or the other.
Also of that 10 million, nearly half would go back into the system through tax and VAT. It's a pittance. ....Minister

All I can think of is Sir Humphrey !!

Well it is a bureaucratic measure on the translation into a language we are talking about here Ringo. And 10 million is a pittance for this measure when the overall budget is taken into account.

Virtually everyone south of the border stopped thinking or talking about this the moment it was announced the government was going to apply for official status. It is a small but important gesture that isn't a burden to anyone except those who have a beam in their eye when it comes to this specific language.

Willow
Again, we're talking about Irish here not Gaelic.

And an important point to remember is that many people for whom Irish is their mother tongue/first language speak English now most of the time. There are probably more native speakers in Dublin than anywhere else and because they might speak English most of the time does not mean they should be classed as English speakers.
60,000 in the Gaeltacht is one thing, you can easily double that to take into account native speakers outside the Gaeltacht who deserve services in their native tongue. If the services aren't there they can't use their language and they SHOULD be able to use their own language in their own country. (an important point because the language will only survive if it is used(of course this is not the only way the language can be used))

Ringo
One thing I read a short while ago is about the States involvement in the Irish language movement. The State is much to blame for the condition of the language today. They have had and continue to have a laissez faire attitude towards the language. With the coming of the Languages Act 2003 and the ongoing implementation of said Act perhaps this is changing. One point raised in the piece I read is about consistency, the state needs to be consistent in it's dealings with the Irish language, both at national level and international level. Irish MUST be on par with English in all circumstances. Native speakers seem to be FOR official status of Irish, shouldn't we listen to them?

Btw, I withdraw my earlier response about necessity. The response is more directed at the issue of whether or not I think Irish should be an Official EU language, which I think it should.

Is it necessary you asked? I honestly don't know. Maybe, maybe not. BUT I do believe that all of these steps are positive steps for the language. This step alone with do little for the language, it's not a magic solution (as some people seem to assume we are saying) but hundreds of such small steps together might be a large stride forward for our language.

Q: An bhfuil morán Gaeilge agatsa?

George

you obviously believe in tiering cultures

So do you - you're the one calling for such recognition for Irish but not Catalan, Basque, Chinese etc!

The truth is this measure is being called for for purely 'symbolic' reasons. Sorry, but if the EU is going to go down that line, never mind two, about 400 can play at that game!

The more I read of this debate, the more I think it a bad idea for Irish to be an official EU language - both for the EU and for Irish.

IJP,
I don't think that is fair.
I have no issue with Catalan or Chinese if they are a national language of the EU. I don't care how many speak these languages.

What I do care about is not defining a language's right to recognition based on the numbers speaking it.

If we made Chinese a third official language in Ireland and our Chinese brothers and sisters wanted it to become an official EU language I would support them.

The point is the status of a language in the EU. Irish should have the same status of all other official EU language regardless of its numbers.

The Catalans should campaign to the Spanish government to make it an official language and then move to have it as an EU language. This is a bureaucratic issue so naturally there is a bureaucratic process.

To deny a qualified language access to this bureaucracy based on numbers of users is tiering.

George

How can you guarantee same day service? You've never worked in the business but offer same day translation guaranteed!

I never offered same day guaranteed. I said it would probably possible to translate within 24 hours. But it doesn't really matter: 2-3 days, even a week, would be perfectly reasonable.

Sorry but you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think there are that many competent translators going around who you can call up at the drop of a hat.

How is the EU going to find them all then?!

It's hard enough gettting decent German ones. 10 million to translate all is a decent price and you'd be hard pressed to get it cheaper.

Sounds like a scandalous rip-off. A pointless waste of money.

Also, it's not a waste of money because it is employing people to do a job that Irish language speakers - tax payers as well you know - say they want and need.

Who are these Gaelic-speakers who say they want to read EC decisions? Where is your evidence? (And I don't mean Gaelic language lobby groups or the Translators' Union!)

Also, you say one or two people. Why don't you wait and see how much it is accessed? What makes you think only 1 or 2 out of a potential 300,000 would take up the option? You're slowly falling into the language fascism that is "sure they can use English".

Because very few people, no matter what language they speak, have any interest in EC decisions. There's a tiny demand anyway, never mind among a few thousand Gaelic-speakers.

My argument is not unreasonable, I was merely pointing out that the tiny cost will be borne by us anyway, one way or the other.

It's not a tiny cost. And it won't be borne by anyone if it's not spent.

Also of that 10 million, nearly half would go back into the system through tax and VAT. It's a pittance.

Funny how it's OK for taxpayers to pay for Gaelic translators, but a couple of weeks ago, public services in NI had to be slashed!

The Republic is spending 36 billion in the next three years on capital investment alone for example. This is a cultural investment and as such is hard to quantify in monetary terms. Wait and see Willowfield before passing judgement.

Capital investment and paying for unnecessary and unwanted Gaelic translations are not the same thing.

It is a small but important gesture that isn't a burden to anyone except those who have a beam in their eye when it comes to this specific language.

10m on a "gesture". Never mind that it's unnecessary and unwanted and documents could be provided on request. Pathetic.

maca

Again, we're talking about Irish here not Gaelic.

They're the same thing.

George

Sorry, but your argument doesn't appear to make sense to me, perhaps you can explain.

Firstly, a language should only be given official EU status if it has the fortune to be 'national'? So 6 million Catalan speakers lose out solely because their language isn't 'national' (even though most of them would say it is)? Sorry, but this is plainly nonsense.

So secondly, if you support Catalan's case (which surely you must given its unquestionable popular support in Catalonia and the Balearics), but we don't base entry on numbers, what the hell do we base it on?

Your argument, particularly when 'rights of speakers' are brought into it, leads directly to a linguistic free-for-all where any old vernacular has a clear case for inclusion. Surely if I and a few mates invent a language and use it as our first language in certain social settings, we have those same rights? If not, why not?

Such a linguistic free-for-all will only succeed in precisely the reverse policy being adopted - all languages will be deemed 'official' but in practice some, probably indeed just one, will be 'more official' than others.

The more I read of this, the more I think the Stádas campaign is a monumental own goal and nothing other than a step towards making English the sole language of EU administration. You know what, most EU citizens will be quite happy with that. You and I as EU linguists will not, but we'll have brought it upon ourselves.

WF

[Irish and Gaelic] are the same thing..

They're not, in fact, but this hasn't been well explained.

Essentially the vast majority of European languages derive from a single source, Proto-Indo-European. In turn this split into dialects which became mutually unintelligible, thus separate languages, so by about 1000BC it would have split to 'Proto-Romance', 'Proto-Germanic', 'Proto-Celtic' and so on. 'Proto-Romance' became Latin (among others which almost entirely died out), which in turn became French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian etc. 'Proto-Germanic' split three ways to 'West Germanic' (now German, Dutch, English, dare I say Scots), 'North Germanic' (Scandinavian) and 'East Germanic' (which all died out). 'Proto Celtic' split two ways, into 'Brythonic' or 'Britannic' and 'Goidelic' or 'Gaelic'. 'Gaelic' in turn gives us modern Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic. In practice, the former is usually referred to in English as 'Irish', and the latter as 'Gaelic' (pronounced as if 'Gallic').

Irish and Gaelic are of course similar - in much the same way English and Scots are, in fact!

IJP
"They're not, in fact, but this hasn't been well explained"

It has been well explained what the name of the language is. It's a simple case, Willow knows the name of the language and knows that his use of "Gaelic" causes offence as I attempted to explain in detail before.

IJP/maca

In the context of this discussion, it is quite clear what is meant by Gaelic. It is entirely obvious that we are discussing Irish Gaelic, and not Scots Gaelic (the clue's in the title of the blog and the substance of the discussion below it).

There is no "offence" caused by using the word Gaelic. That is how Gaeilge translates into English, for goodness' sake!

I won't be put into a politically-correct straightjacket and be forced to change the name I have always used for the language. Especially when there is no logical reason for doing so. If it's good enough for the Gaelic League, then it's good enough for me and everyone else.

Willow

"the clue's in the title of the blog"
... where it says Irish and not Gaelic.

"There is no "offence" caused by using the word Gaelic"
Yes there is, as explained before.

"That is how Gaeilge translates into English, for goodness' sake!"
'Gaeilge' translates as 'Irish' as explained before.

"I won't be put into a politically-correct straightjacket and be forced to change the name I have always used for the language."
I've no problem with that except that you must accept that you are knowingly causing offence to some. AND you also expect us to change names we have always used such as "Derry" or "Ireland" which makes your position hypocritical.

"Especially when there is no logical reason for doing so."
Except that it's the wrong name! Doh!

maca

... where it says Irish and not Gaelic.

... and hence the discussion is obviously not about Scots Gaelic, but Irish Gaelic.

Yes there is, as explained before.

You've never explained it. You just state that there is "offence", with no explanation.

'Gaeilge' translates as 'Irish' as explained before.

It doesn't. (Just look at the etymology.)

I've no problem with that except that you must accept that you are knowingly causing offence to some.

I'm not causing offence to anyone.

AND you also expect us to change names we have always used such as "Derry" or "Ireland" which makes your position hypocritical.

It doesn't. I have no problem with you using the name "Derry" - my only problem is with those who want to change the official name for culturally chauvinistic reasons. I've no problem with "Ireland" being used appropriately - Why would I?!

Except that it's the wrong name! Doh!

But it's not.

Willow
"and hence the discussion is obviously not about Scots Gaelic, but Irish Gaelic."

Then use 'Irish Gaelic'. NOT 'Gaelic'

"You've never explained it. You just state that there is "offence", with no explanation."
I did explain it. I gave a number of reasons why some find it offensive.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your points because they are all wrong and have been explained to you before. Continue with your sad little game if you wish...

maca

Then use 'Irish Gaelic'. NOT 'Gaelic'

There's no need. It's quite obvious, given the subject of the blog, that we're discussing Irish Gaelic!

I did explain it. I gave a number of reasons why some find it offensive.

None was reasonable.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your points because they are all wrong and have been explained to you before. Continue with your sad little game if you wish...

None of my points is wrong. On the contrary, they are right.

*Yawn*

"that we're discussing Irish Gaelic!"
Yes, so why use the name for Scottish Gaelic?

"None was[sic] reasonable"
Indeed they were very reasonable. If the term has been used in the past to deliberatly cause offence then it's very reasonable to expect people to use an alternative (or correct) term to avoid causing offence.

"On the contrary, they are right."
On the contrary, they were wrong.

And the cycle continues ...

Perhaps this thread can get back to a discussion on whether or not the expenditure is a waste of money?

Here's my (mildly confused) take on the Irish-Gaelic/Gaelic thing.

When I am speaking in Spanish, I use, without premeditation, the word 'gaélico' for the Irish language (Although in mitigation, I once had an argument with a Spanish national that the terms indio and hindú were not interchangeable). One could argue then, that were a non-native English speaker of the EU to call the Irish language 'Gaelic', it would surely be unreasonable to take offence. The offence, then surely results from the nationality or world-view of the person categorising the language as Gaelic, as opposed to Irish.

Additionally, in light of its official status, does Irish/Irish-Gaelic/gaélico/irlandais remain solely the language of an Irish nation, or does it now 'belong' to each and every EU citizen? In this case, surely taking offence to the translation of Gaelige as Gaelic or gaélico is no longer a valid position to take?

The language of the Irish Gaeltacht, now that it has official EU status, no longer needs to be codified through English. Surely it's a bad idea to translate 'gaelige' into other languages as 'irlandés','irlandais' or 'irlandese' because its translation hitherto (for undoubtedly justifiable reasons) in English is Irish!

Maca - I wouldn't be so sensitive, if it was referred to as Gaelic in his surroundings then why shouldn't he use it? It isn't an offensive or derogatory term. We should all use the words that we grew up with, it makes, in this case English, richer - otherwise were heading for Planet Proactive, where everyone is touching base 24/7 and telling it to the hand, 'cause the face won't listen. Not to mention indulging in a spot of leveraging something or other.

An bhfuil morán Gaeilge agatsa? -
níl mé chomh fluirseach is a bhí mé i rith mo laethanna scoile. Chuaigh mé go Gaelscoil agus rinne mé an méanteist trí Gaeilge, ach nuair a thánaig mé go dtí an ardteist bhí chuid maith de mo Gaeilge caillte agam. Ceapaim go bhfuil feabhas ag teach ar mo Gaeilge arís mar gheall ar TG4. Níl ionaim ach Armchair Gaeilgóir.

The State is much to blame for the condition of the language today. They have had and continue to have a laissez faire attitude towards the language.

I agree completely. But this measure is more of the same. They are quite prepared to jump up and down and make an issue about the status of Irish in Europe, but pay lip service themselves. In fairness I think Eamon O'Cuiv is genuinely committed to improving the status of Irish, but it is not exactly an issue close to the heart of the rest of the cabinet. Mary Harney thinks its an national asset too - which means she'd probably sell the language off if she could find a buyer.

George -
It is a small but important gesture that isn't a burden to anyone except those who have a beam in their eye when it comes to this specific language.

this is the 'giving the empolyees of a few language bodies a warm fuzzy feeling of satisfation' I was on about earlier in the thread. It is a pity that your passion for the language is not matched by a view of the bigger picture - that turning Brussels into the Tower of Babel isn't the answer to anything.

Slackjaw
"were a non-native English speaker of the EU to call the Irish language 'Gaelic', it would surely be unreasonable to take offence"
"In this case, surely taking offence to the translation of Gaelige as Gaelic or gaélico is no longer a valid position to take?"

Very true with a BUT.
Personally I only take offence when Gaelic is used by people who already know the name of the language and use Gaelic for a *particular reason*.
I never take offence when Gaelic is used by someone who doesn't know better, but I will almost always correct them.
I know many people with the same opinion.

Even the Finns can get it right, Irish is 'iiiri', 'gaeli' is generally reserved for Scottish Gaelic (skottilainen gaeli) and Manx (Man-Saarin gaeli). ;)

maca

Yes, so why use the name for Scottish Gaelic?

I was using a name for Irish Gaelic.

"None was[sic] reasonable"

"Was" is the correct form of the verb here.

Indeed they were very reasonable.

They weren't.

If the term has been used in the past to deliberatly cause offence then it's very reasonable to expect people to use an alternative (or correct) term to avoid causing offence.

Not necessarily. And, as far as I know, the term hasn't been used in the past, certainly not by me, to cause offence.

On the contrary, they were wrong.

No, they are right.

Perhaps this thread can get back to a discussion on whether or not the expenditure is a waste of money?

slackjaw

The offence, then surely results from the nationality or world-view of the person categorising the language as Gaelic, as opposed to Irish.

But what is the offence??

Additionally, in light of its official status, does Irish/Irish-Gaelic/gaélico/irlandais remain solely the language of an Irish nation, or does it now 'belong' to each and every EU citizen? In this case, surely taking offence to the translation of Gaelige as Gaelic or gaélico is no longer a valid position to take?

Good point.

Speaking of Finland, that reminds me - does anybody know when St Peter's Eve falls ?

maca

Personally I only take offence when Gaelic is used by people who already know the name of the language and use Gaelic for a *particular reason*.

But the name of the language is Gaelic! Just look at the etymology (Gaeilge)! Those who called it "Irish" are guilty of mistranslation, presumably for some political/cultural reason.

It is only in the last or 8 years that I have noticed "Irish" becoming the "politically correct" name for the language. Up until then "Gaelic" was used as often as "Irish".

Why did, and why does, the Gaelic League call itself the Gaelic League if "Gaelic" is "offensive"?

Ringo
"I wouldn't be so sensitive, if it was referred to as Gaelic in his surroundings then why shouldn't he use it? It isn't an offensive or derogatory term."

In general I agree with what you've said (certainly with the latter half of your para). But i'm sure you know it was used as a derogatory term by the anti-Irish group not so long ago. And I feel that some people still do use it in this fashion.


"níl mé chomh fluirseach is a bhí mé i rith mo laethanna scoile. Chuaigh mé go Gaelscoil agus rinne mé an méanteist trí Gaeilge,"

Lucky man! I only wish i'd had the same.

"Ceapaim go bhfuil feabhas ag teach ar mo Gaeilge arís mar gheall ar TG4. Níl ionaim ach Armchair Gaeilgóir."

Similar to myself but my Irish has slipped so much since the Leaving Cert that i'm essentially a beginner.
Though in my case it's RnaG through the internet rather than TG4 ;)

How is it "derogatory" to use the properly translated name?

Willow
""Was" is the correct form of the verb here"

It can actually be singular or plural. I just highlighted it because I would consider it more natural to use the plural.

I see little point in arguing with you when you won't accept even basic facts.
"Irish" was actually in use hundreds of years ago.

I took your advice and check with etymonline.com.

Related:
"Celt. Celtic, Indo-European language branch that includes Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, and Breton"
"Gael. Gaelic, Celtic language of Highland Scotland"

maca

It can actually be singular or plural. I just highlighted it because I would consider it more natural to use the plural.

It's singular: "none" means "not one".

I took your advice and check with etymonline.com.

"Gaelic" throws up:

1774, earlier Gathelik (1596), from Gael (Scottish Gaidheal), from O.Ir. Goidhel, the original form of the word. The native name in both Ireland and Scotland, Gael was first used in Eng. exclusively of Scottish Highlanders (1596).

"Irish" throws up nothing to do with language:

c.1205, Irisce, from stem of O.E. Iras "inhabitant of Ireland," from O.N. irar, ult. from O.Ir. Eriu "Erin." Meaning "temper, passion" is 1834, Amer.Eng. (first attested in writings of Davy Crockett), from the legendary pugnacity of Irish people. Irish-American is from 1832; Irish coffee is from 1950. Wild Irish (1399) originally were those not under English rule; Black Irish in ref. to those of Mediterranean appearance is from 1888.

But never mind etymonline.com, any fool can see that the English word "Gaelic", not "Irish" is related to the Gaelic word "Gaeilge"!

Why is the Gaelic League so-called if the word "Gaelic" is "offensive"?

Willow
"It's singular: "none" means "not one"."
And can also be plural when it means not any of several.

Why not highlight "Gael [Scottish Gaidheal], was first used in Eng. exclusively of Scottish Highlanders"

"any fool can see that the English word "Gaelic", not "Irish" is related to the Gaelic word "Gaeilge"

Sometimes you make yourself out to be very simple.

maca

And can also be plural when it means not any of several.

It means "not one".

Why not highlight "Gael [Scottish Gaidheal], was first used in Eng. exclusively of Scottish Highlanders"

Because its first usage is not relevant.

Sometimes you make yourself out to be very simple.

I note your failure to respond to the blindingly obvious etymology.

Why is the Gaelic League so-called if the word "Gaelic" is "offensive"?

Willow
"Because its first usage is not relevant.
I note your failure to respond to the blindingly obvious etymology"

It's first use IS relevant. The Scottish continue to this day to refer to Scottish Gaelic as Gaelic & therefore how am I ignoring the etymology!

Any particular reason you have turned around on this issue. It's not actually that long ago that here on Slugger, in black and white, you said that yes, you accept that Irish IS the correct term. And don't deny you said it!
So why the turn around?

Willowfield -

"politically correct" name for the language. Up until then "Gaelic" was used as often as "Irish".

There's nothing politically correct about it. It is what it has been referred to down here for centuries down here, not by the 'native' Irish but by the English speakers.

There may be a simple explanation for the two words - where the English planters went it was called Irish (hence all the 'Irishtowns' in the Pale), but for all I know it might have been called Gaelic in Ulster by the Scottish planters, because that is what it was called in Scotland.

Just a guess...

maca

It's [sic] first use IS relevant.

Why is its first usage any more relevant than, say, its second usage?

The Scottish continue to this day to refer to Scottish Gaelic as Gaelic & therefore how am I ignoring the etymology!

You're not ignoring it in relation to Scots Gaelic. You're ignoring it in relation to Irish Gaelic!

Any particular reason you have turned around on this issue.

What issue, and how have I turned around?

It's not actually that long ago that here on Slugger, in black and white, you said that yes, you accept that Irish IS the correct term. And don't deny you said it! So why the turn around?

No recollection of saying that. Maybe I said that both Irish and Gaelic were correct terms.

Why is the Gaelic League so-called if the word "Gaelic" is "offensive"? Why have you failed three times to answer this point?

Just look at the words in English and Gaelic, man!

Gaeilge
Gaelic

Notice any connection?

Gaeilge
Irish

Notice any difference?

Ringo,
I don't believe this move is an answer to anything, I belive it is a right. As I said already on this thread, this is a right not a development measure so stop confusing the two. What is a fuzzy feeling to some is a basic human right to others. The Irish language community feels strongly about this being a necessary right.

It is a small but important gesture that isn't a burden to anyone. It is no tower of Babel.

Willowfield,
for clarity, it would make sense to call the language Irish rather than Gaelic so I don't understand your obsession with using just Gaelic.

Gaelic is more associated with Scotland and also the term Gaelic is general and could mean any of the Celtic languages.

It would be like me calling Dutch, Deutsch because it is a Germanic language.

Ringo

There may be a simple explanation for the two words - where the English planters went it was called Irish (hence all the 'Irishtowns' in the Pale), but for all I know it might have been called Gaelic in Ulster by the Scottish planters, because that is what it was called in Scotland.

Quite possibly. I'm not denying that the language is also called Irish. I'm merely defending my own use of the term Gaelic and querying how it could possibly cause offence (particularly since the name of the language in its own tongue is Gaeilge ... is that offensive!)!

maca has singularly failed to make a case.

George or any other well travelled bod - How do the german-speaking Swiss refer to their language ? Deutsch or Schweizerdeutsch?

Etymology Irish

Pronunciation: 'I-rish
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from (assumed) Old English Irisc, from Iras Irishmen, of Celtic origin; akin to Old Irish Ériu Ireland
1 plural in construction : natives or inhabitants of Ireland or their descendants especially when of Celtic speech or culture
2 a : the Celtic language of Ireland especially as used since the later medieval periodb : English spoken by the Irish

I thought Gaelic when used to refer to Irish was rude..I used to always get told to say Irish when referring to the Irish language and not the word gaelic.

is a basic human right

George - get a bit of perspective. Food, shelter and dignity are basic human rights. It is one thing getting electrodes attached to your scrotum - it is another thing entirely not translating a document with with more pages than there are people who will read it.

Whateever it is not a basic human right.

Willow
"No recollection of saying that. Maybe I said that both Irish and Gaelic were correct terms"

No you said clearly that you accept Irish as the name of the language, but you wanted to know why it was.


"Why is the Gaelic League so-called if the word "Gaelic" is "offensive"? Why have you failed three times to answer this point?"

Because:
1. The GL/GU was founded close to 100 years before I was born so I have no idea why they use that name in English.
2. You have twisted the point, you imply that I find the word offensive in all circumstances which is far from the truth

WF to Ringo
"querying how it could possibly cause offence "
And this point I clearly gave you a number of reasons in the last discussion we had. Which you ignore.


"Gaeilge
Gaelic"
Gaighlig

Notice any connection?

"Gaeilge
Irish
Notice any difference?"

Béarla - English
Notice any difference?

And it's not just us:
Welsh - Cymraeg notice any difference?

Ringo,
I totally disagree. It is a basic human right to be able to communicate in your national language.

George -

no one is stopping you communicating in your national language, or any language for that matter. Your biggest obstacle to doing so is the fact that the vast majority of your fellow nationals would have difficulty communicating in the same langauge, never mind the other half a billion odd EU citzens who are more familiar with Klingon than Irish.

maca

2 a : the Celtic language of Ireland especially as used since the later medieval periodb : English spoken by the Irish

No-one's disputing the language is also called Irish! It is you who is disputing that it is also called Gaelic! And you have totally failed to do so, and totally failed to explain how it can be "offensive" to use the word "Gaelic" for a language whose name is "Gaeilge"!

Ringo,
you are Borg.

you are Borg

LOL

No need for spoken language at all so!

WF

I have every sympathy with anyone refusing to be put in a 'politically correct straitjacket', and I cannot understand why anyone would find the term 'Gaelic' to refer to the Irish language 'offensive'. However, I *can* understand why they would find it 'wrong'.

George has it exactly right. Translating 'Gaeilge' as 'Gaelic' is exactly equivalent to translating 'Deutsch' as 'Dutch'. Centuries ago yes, etymologically yes, but in general use no. It may sound daft, but then having a clear distinction in meaning between, say, 'ignore' and 'ignorance' is daft too - but language is not mathematics and popular use reigns supreme.

I fear your defence that it is 'obvious' which language you're referring to is not correct either - when I first joined this thread I skim-read the posts and genuinely thought you were referring to Scottish Gaelic.

It would make more sense if people consistently used 'Irish Gaelic' and 'Scottish Gaelic' (which is my usual practice). However, they do not. They consistently use 'Irish' and 'Gaelic' respectively. Like I say, it's popular usage and the first rule of linguistics is that popular usage decides what's right.

Indeed, it is popular usage that is now burdening us with the totally illogical 'none were'... :)

It is a basic human right to be able to communicate in your national language.

But not to be able to communicate in your regional language, even when that region is bigger than many nations?

It is a basic human responsibility to communicate accurately with other people too.

It could be argued that by validating French one is legitimising oppression and cultural imperialism.

IJP

It would make more sense if people consistently used 'Irish Gaelic' and 'Scottish Gaelic' (which is my usual practice). However, they do not.

I'll not be bound by what "they" do. I'll do what is reasonable and sensible. In a discussion about language in Ireland, everyone, including maca, knows what is meant by Gaelic - it is a commonly-used term.

They consistently use 'Irish' and 'Gaelic' respectively. Like I say, it's popular usage and the first rule of linguistics is that popular usage decides what's right.

"Gaelic" is also a popular usage.

IJP

'the first rule of linguistics is that popular usage decides what's right.'

I'm sure the Eskimoes, the Red Indians and the wee dafties, not to mention the negroes, will be glad to hear that.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

Davros

'It could be argued that by validating French one is legitimising oppression and cultural imperialism.'

It could, but it'd be a very long thread. Feeling argumentative today, hein?

IJP,
one reason I agree with this move is because Irish is a national language and this step brings us in line with our constitution.

On regional languages, It's first up to the region to get recognition from its mother parliament. If the mother parliament has no interest and if they are that annoyed let them try cede from that parliament and become a nation.

If the regional language is put on a national footing then naturally it should also be used in international dealings within the EU. Otherwise, it's up to the national governments.

"But not to be able to communicate in your regional language, even when that region is bigger than many nations?"

As I keep saying, size is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many people we are talking about. If it's a national language, it deserves national rights.

"It is a basic human responsibility to communicate accurately with other people too."

Hopefully they'll get decent translators for 85,000k. Anyway, it's just as important to have equal status in communication.

Let them speak English is not an option.

What's the point in wasting millions translating screeds of documents that no Gaelic-speaker would ever dream of reading?

You're awfully concerned about public spending in NI, George, why so profligate when it comes to EU spending?

It could be argued that by validating French one is legitimising oppression and cultural imperialism.

Posted by: Davros at December 3, 2004 02:38 PM

The same could also be argued for English.

Ca ira, ca ira.

Davros:'It could be argued that by validating French one is legitimising oppression and cultural imperialism.'

SJ: It could, but it'd be a very long thread. Feeling argumentative today, hein?

I know it's controversial, and I should be reading the DUP website - can you blame me ? But it's an important point. The French language was imposed on the people of what became France in much the same way as English was imposed here.

Dav

'The French language was imposed on the people of what became France in much the same way as English was imposed here.'

I think it was more than just the people of France ;)

Willowfield,
spending 10 million on this is not a waste in my view. This is a small cost for a big delivery.

The EU has a total annual budget of around 100 billion or less than 1% of total GDP for the area.

Administration accounts for only 5.3% of the budget. There are a only 32,000 employed in EU administration.

Compare the level of public sector expenditure in Northern Ireland and then you will understand the true meaning of waste.

How many in administration in NI? Not less than 30,000, that's for sure.

George

spending 10 million on this is not a waste in my view. This is a small cost for a big delivery.

Big delivery of something for which there is no demand! Of course it's a waste!

The EU has a total annual budget of around 100 billion or less than 1% of total GDP for the area.

That doesn't alter the fact that spending 10m on translating documents that no-one wants to read into a language that hardly anyone speaks is a waste of money!

Compare the level of public sector expenditure in Northern Ireland and then you will understand the true meaning of waste.

So it's OK to waste money as long as it's a small waste in relative terms? The bigger your budget the more waste becomes acceptable?

Willow
"It is you who is disputing that it is also called Gaelic!"

What I am saying is that Gaelic is not the correct term. "Irish" or "Irish Gaelic" are the generally accepted terms.

"totally failed to explain how it can be "offensive" to use the word "Gaelic""

As I have said (you are very slow on the uptake) is that I have explained this on a previous thread and am not going to explain it again here just for you (although I have given one reason to Ringo above).

Willowfield,
it's not a waste to the 300,000 Irish speakers, majority of whom are taxpayers (take note we have a lot of workers), who will benefit from this. It may be a waste to you and your ilk.

These 300,000 have rights and your only argument is subjective, that "it's a waste of money" because you think so.
The people it is being spent on don't agree and they know more about whether it is needed than you, who doesn't even speak the language.

How do you know how many people will benefit from it?

The 300,000 will now have two official EU languages as a result and can apply for many of those 32,000 jobs for a start.

Wait and see the numbers using it before you pass judgement.
Who else is of less value to you?
Horse racing people?
The disabled?
Opera goers?

We spend more on opera than we do on Irish but that's important to some people and if national governments want it supported so be it.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

Davros

Your points about French in France are, of course, entirely accurate.

The point is that there is a distinction between a language in social use (identity) and a language in administrative use (communication). Those who support regional/minority languages tend towards emphasizing the former at the expense (almost invariably) of the latter, those who have no interest in them support the latter at the expense (almost invariably; as in France) of the former.

WF

"Gaelic" is also a popular usage.

I don't think it is, and such use is clearly confusing (particularly in writing, in fact).

George

one reason I agree with this move is because Irish is a national language and this step brings us in line with our constitution.

I realize that, but what has the Irish constitution to do with the EU?

The failure to understand fully that Irish is a minority language is part of the problem. Walk before run. Making it an official EU language will, for reasons shown above, only hasten the day when we have a linguistic free-for-all and thus the day when the people turn their backs on 'all this nonsense' at the expense of lesser-spoken languages.

Out of interest, how many EU member states have English as a 'national language'?

"The point is that there is..." & "The failure to understand..."
You always talk a lot of sense Ian!

Interesting few points raised here:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/eulang.html

-neo-Atlanticists support English as European language of contact
- defensive national language activists seek a limited multilingualism, of national languages
- regionalists and separatists want all languages to get equal status, with hundreds of official languages in Europe
- technological optimists believe full automatic translation will be available "soon", so the political issues will disappear

Also related (slightly outdated)(scroll to bottom of page)
http://www.eurolegal.org/yurp/commission.htm

maca

What I am saying is that Gaelic is not the correct term. "Irish" or "Irish Gaelic" are the generally accepted terms.

Says who?

"Gaelic" is a commonly-used term and there is no reason why I should not use it.

As I have said (you are very slow on the uptake) is that I have explained this on a previous thread and am not going to explain it again here just for you (although I have given one reason to Ringo above).

You didn't. On other threads you just made a meaningless argument that it was "offensive" because it wasn't - according to you - the "correct term".

George

it's not a waste to the 300,000 Irish speakers, majority of whom are taxpayers (take note we have a lot of workers), who will benefit from this. It may be a waste to you and your ilk.

It will be a waste to them, since barely any of them will ever look at anything that is translated.

These 300,000 have rights and your only argument is subjective, that "it's a waste of money" because you think so.

It's not subjective. I'm not arguing that it would be a waste of money because I think so. I'm arguing on the basis that there is insufficient demand to justify spending millions. Especially when a much cheaper option of translating on request would produce the same result.

The people it is being spent on don't agree

How do you know? I asked before for any evidence of demand for these documents and, tellingly, you failed to produce any.

The 300,000 will now have two official EU languages as a result and can apply for many of those 32,000 jobs for a start.

So it's all about "jobs for the boys"?

Who else is of less value to you? Horse racing people? The disabled [sic]? Opera goers?

The question makes no sense. Explain it.

We spend more on opera than we do on Irish but that's important to some people and if national governments want it supported so be it.

The question is about the EU spending millions on Gaelic translations of documents nobody will read. How much the ROI governments spends on opera is irrelevant.

IJP

I don't think it is, and such use is clearly confusing (particularly in writing, in fact).

It's not clearly confusing. It is abundantly clear that in a discussion about language in Ireland, that "Gaelic" refers to Irish Gaelic.

"It will be a waste to them, since barely any of them will ever look at anything that is translated"

Willowfield,
have you any evidence that this service will be used any less, per capita, than for other national languages or is this merely your own prejudicial view?

Nice try. You've no evidence of demand among Gaelic-speakers to look at EU decisions on a same-day basis, then?

If Gaelic-speakers want to look at the decisions, they can request translations. No problem. No need to waste millions translating them for no-one to look at them, though.

I'd say demand to look at these decisions in any language is tiny - confined mainly to government officials and politicians, all of whom in ROI can speak English.

wf:

Gaelic:

well it could refer to Scottish Gaelic, or Manx I suppose

I'd offer an alternative argument that saying Gaelic instead of Irish would depoliticise the language, but I've never heard an Irish speaker suggest this.

IDM

well it could refer to Scottish Gaelic, or Manx I suppose

Yes, of course. But in the context of a discussion about language in Ireland, it's fairly safe to assume one is talking about Irish Gaelic!

Are we supposed to believe Ulster scots is real?? They're just jealous because we have our own language. I mean here are some examples of Ulster Scotch

such efficiency = a skeel tha like o thon
the salary will be= the pye far ths tack wull be
a dependent= onhinger
to apply= furtae pit in fur it

DUP man Jim Allister said "Today's decision to elevate Irish as an official language of the EU is a gross waste of public money for the basest of political reasons"

who's he kiddin? The "Gae Leairn" centre who receive EU funding for loyalist prisoners had all their computers removed for money laundering for paramilitaries.

The irish language has been oppressed for over 800 years as well as our country so he has no right to call it a waste of money.

P.s. When you say "mo" the next word is aspirated so it's "mo fhocloir" with a h

This is totally pointless! Ask 10 adults who "learnt" irish in school to speak it, they won't have a clue! Only the diehards like and speak this language! This will cost so much money! It's pathetic. Who agrees?

Well the Royal family are a complete waste of money. I mean they're not even british, The queen is german and her racist husband is greek. They have no right to be sponging off the tax payers.
Same with Ulster scotch

PS My 84 year old uncle learnt Irish at school and he can still speak it

i thought the queen was a lizard?

David Icke or is it Ike?

The fact that this argument is in place is pretty pathetic. Any other country that had its own original native language would bend over backwards to save it and make it thrive, as a way of throwing the chains of imperialism.
Ireland has a NATIVE language, and it's being killed by inaction. An actions such as this should be celebrated as a stepping stone.
What does Ireland wish to be, just a smaller version of England, speaking English? Or does it want to be like most other European countries, speaking its own native language by the majority?
It's pretty piss poor that Wales, technically unified with England is having better linguistic revival success.
It is piss poor that an independant nation such a Ireland could be so petty about saving its own history. To all those who claim this is a waste of money I ask you, how much do you waste going to horse races? How much do you waste on food and beer that you don't need just to fill your gut, while the language of your ancestors slowly fades into oblivion?
Just remember you're doing what the potato famine almost succeeded in doing -throwing the final blow.
As for arguments that Catalan and some other Spanish semi-dialects (save for Basque) deserve official status, each memeber country should have its national official language as an EU official language.
Ireland should have Irish Gaelic as an official language.

BTW, you don't see Ukraine allowing Russian as a second official language. That would cause Ukrainian to decline. Take a hint, Ireland..... abolish English as a second official langauge. Only then will there be incentive to save the language, perhaps making it the first spoken language eventually, English as a second language only.

I totally agree. The brits have succeeded in almost murdering our language.
We need to forbid all enlgish and if people dont wanna speak irish they can leave and go to england.
France have a policy whereby if emigrants dont learn french they have to leave. We should have that here. Dont force english in schools force Irish as afterall it is now an OFFICIAl language, not made up on the spot like "Ulster Scotch" who receive over £4m per year for a fake language.
Bunreacht na hÉireann states that Irekand is the official language of out 32 counties so lets speak it.

I totally agree. The brits have succeeded in almost murdering our language.
We need to forbid all enlgish and if people dont wanna speak irish they can leave and go to england.
France have a policy whereby if emigrants dont learn french they have to leave. We should have that here. Dont force english in schools force Irish as afterall it is now an OFFICIAl language, not made up on the spot like "Ulster Scotch" who receive over £4m per year for a fake language.
Bunreacht na hÉireann states that Irekand is the official language of out 32 counties so lets speak it.

I totally agree. The brits have succeeded in almost murdering our language.
We need to forbid all enlgish and if people dont wanna speak irish they can leave and go to england.
France have a policy whereby if emigrants dont learn french they have to leave. We should have that here. Dont force english in schools force Irish as afterall it is now an OFFICIAl language, not made up on the spot like "Ulster Scotch" who receive over £4m per year for a fake language.
Bunreacht na hÉireann states that Irekand is the official language of out 32 counties so lets speak it.

Hey guys, it's not the Brits who murder the Irish language, it's Gerry Adams.

I don't know too much Irish, but I have worked on linguistics and language learning techniques on three continents for over twenty years, and I can tell by his hesitations, English intonation and Belfast accent that Gerry makes a hash of it every time. Irish is certainly not his mother tongue.

Good work POM, you've us all convinced now that the Irish language isn't simply being abused for political reasons.

POM,
You're a clown. Ulster-Scots gets £1.7m for all language and cultural activity. Only about £300K per year gets spent on language. Wise up.

POM,
Just in case you're a total clampet - the U-S Agency currently gets £1.7m per year. About £400K of that goes on running costs (accommodation, staff salaries, office expenses, depreciation). That leaves £1.3m, £300K of which is invested in linguistic projects like Stranmillis College and the University of Ulster at Magee. That leaves £1m to promote the entire cultural grassroots, most of which is spent on grant applications by the 300+ grassroots Ulster-Scots groups to run cultural events, musical tuition classes, dance tuition classes and publications programmes.

All of this info is in the public domain (see www.ulsterscotsagency.com) and if you were interested in doing any research at all you would already know these things.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to total all of the govt £ spent on Irish culture and language each year? I would guess the inequality is already running at around 20:1

> We need to forbid all enlgish and if people dont
> wanna speak irish they can leave and go to england.

Mr Morgan

Well that will certainly reduce property prices in Ireland, as it seems 98% of the population currently speak English as their daily language.

Morgan. .. that's a Norman/Welsh family name, is n't it?

To those of us whose families have lived in this god-forsaken island for thousands of years find it a bit rich that blow-ins like yourself try to tell us what language we should or should not speak. That we should be speaking the language of one culture who migrated to Ireland , the Celts, rather than the language of another culture that migrated to Ireland, the Scandinavian / Norman / English, I find to be the hight of cultural arrogance and true cultural imperialism. My ancestors became English speaking 300+ years ago the same way they became Gaelic speaking 1500+ years before, by diffusion and submersion.

There were people living in Ireland 7000 years before the first Gaelic speaking Celt ever set foot on this island, and the there will be people living here quite happily long after the last native speaking Gaelic speaker dies, sometime in the next generation or two.

Languages come, languages go. Get over it.

You know, this was a pretty peaceful island before all those bloody Celts moved in...

Nice one, jmc

well jmc there are definitely a lot of morgans in wales but there are also a lot here. the irish morgans originated from leinster especially louth and leinster so dont try and crack that my ancestors emigrated from wales.

jmc, McConnell, A "gaelic" name no doubt, and your calling Morgan a "blow in". ROTFL!

maca

Ah thats the joy of Irish surnames.

Mostly you can tell their origin, but sometimes you can be tripped up. When in comes to O's and Mac's and Mc's you have to be careful because their use, especially in the 19'th century, was very fluid. So I am sorry to disappoint you , but my parental surname stabilized with its current prefix about 100 years ago. Before then the prefix had been sometimes O, Mc or Mac, but usually dropped altogether.

The Irish came late to surnames and were rather haphazard in their use and spelling, much to the delight of future genealogists...

Mr Morgan

There are lots of Morgans in Wales because that is where the family originated. Have a quick look in any book on the genealogy of Irish family surnames. The family most probably settled in Ireland during the 13'th or 14'th century so that technically makes it Old English.

No shame in that. Just another group in the long line of cultures and peoples that have emigrated to Ireland over the last nine thousand years. The paleolithic hunter / gathers, the neolithic coastal farmers, the bronze age upland farmers, the iron age Celts, the Scandinavians, the Anglo-Normans, the Norman-Welsh, the upland Scots, the Old English, the New English, the lowland Scots, and now the Poles, Chinese, Balts, and dozens more nationalities.

"I'm just waiting for the day when they make Scots an official language."

last year Scots enthusiasts erected road signs in the Newtownards Strangford area written in Ulster Scots. The DUP sent out angry members to take them down again because they believed the signposts were written in Irish Gaelic and had been the work of republican shitstirrers.

i me be half morgan but im also half Murphy, the most common and famous irish name. I suppose they came from Wales too or settled here in the 12th century.

JMC
I'm afraid you're post makes little sense as usual. The origin is pretty clear, no matter what you claim was the prefix a couple of hundred years ago. And as I said it makes you as much a blow in a "morgan" (according to your 10:37 of yesterday).

Also
"The Irish came late to surnames" Perhaps, when compared to the Chinese(3k yrs old) or Japanese(5th C). But if we limit ourselves to just Europe then your statement is false.

"you're" should have been "your" - typo

maca

It seems you know as little about Irish family names and genealogy as you do about comparative linguistics....

And I would hazard a guess by your tone that you might have one of the blow-in surnames too..

Anyway, my lot, based on the surnames that appear in my family tree for the last six or seven generations, and the very strong degree of geographical localization of Irish surnames, have been settled in the drumlin country of south ulster / north midlands for a very very long time.

Read the book The Tribes of Britain if you want a introduction to the migration and settlement patterns in these islands over the last 10,000 years. Upland areas, after initial settlement, tend to have remarkable stable population groups over very long periods of time.

Irish? EU? Official language? I've never heard of such a hideous, monetary piss up the wall.

Intoducing Irish as an official EU language, is a slap in the face to minority language speakers all over Europe. Do those barmy Europrats not waste enough cash?

And I say this as a Welshman, from a country where there are a significant number of people who speak Welsh as a first language. But I wouldn't advocate spending millions to translate wads of bureaucratic Brussels gumf into Welsh for people who, if they wanted to, could read the sleep-inducing tosh in English. And, since there are just a handful of Irishmen who genuinely speak Gaelic as a mother tongue, I feel it's another disgusting abuse of Ireland's chief EU scrounger status.

I have no quarrel with the Irish wanting to ensure Gaelic remains part of their national heretage, but the EU, as a supernational institution, is the wrong forum for this political ballgame. Practicality has to come before politics sometimes, y'know? And this is especially true when the cash-hungry EU translation racket already gobbles up $1billion every year. It can only breed further resentment from an increasing number of people who feel the EU is taking the piss.

James
"But I wouldn't advocate spending millions to translate wads of bureaucratic Brussels gumf into Welsh for people who, if they wanted to, could read the sleep-inducing tosh in English"

But you already spend millions translating documents into Welsh for people who can also speak English! Didn't you know that!?!

JMcConnell
Apologies for the delayed response, I didn't check this thread before today.

"And I would hazard a guess by your tone that you might have one of the blow-in surnames too.."

It's as much a blow-in as yours J.

"Anyway, my lot, have been settled in the drumlin country of south ulster / north midlands for a very very long time."

But still blow ins according to your own previous posts.

I think it's good that English is spoken widely in Ireland, leaving aside the realities of how it happenned.

If it was to magically dissapear from Ireland tomorrow we'd be planning how to introduce English in the schools, so as to be attractive to foreign investment.

But Irish should also be taught and respected.
Many countries thrive that are bi-lingual. But that will only happen when enough people want it to happen.

maca

As I said previously the first people arrived in Ireland 9K years ago. Most of my lot probably arrived in the south ulster uplands starting 4K+ years ago. Your lot, based on your paternal surname, have probably being bouncing backward and forwards between the south Ulster lowlands and Scotland for the last several thousand years, and the original poster who I replied to had a paternal surname that arrived here in the last thousand years from Wales.

I was just pointing out the irony of the fact that the poster of the "speak Irish or get out" opinion had a paternal surname that was a fairly recent (non-Irish speaking) arrival. The fact that his maternal surname has been kicking around this island as long as ours does not really detract from the silliness of his original post.

i don't care what anybody has to say about Irish, especially if they are not priviledged enough to be Irish. I know that i am Gaelach and im fuckin proud of it. British Heritage isn't exactly a strong thing. Its made up of three different countries which each spreak their own language and their queen is a german who is married to a racist greek. The language is a bastard language, cutting and pasting from all other languages, including words from IRISH eg slogan,craic,glen
Tiocfaidh ár lá

i direct ppl to they grey box at the side of this website http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/gli1.htm

CC: "This is a backward step. If the Euro was a good idea, how come a common European language isn't? English should become the common European language and scrap translations into anything else. Who reads the translations? Anyone here? It's inevitable that English will become the European language. We should stop wasting money fighting it. All entries for the European Song Farce already use English, bar France. "

And there you have answered your question all by your lonesome, Congal, at least in part. Unless you are willing to make French the universal EU language, its not going to fly. The French go so far as to employ "language police" to try to drive out invading Anglo-Saxonisms, like "e-mail," which they have "suggested" the replacement of "courielle," short for "courier-electonique."

There is too much history to overcome to make the sweeping change to posit. Eastern Europe would not jump on getting their documents in German, the French demand French, et al and ad nauseum.

Mr Morgan

You are sounding more and more like a third generation Irish-American who has had too much to drink in some Irish bar in Boston on St Patricks Day..

maca / jmc

"The Irish came late to surnames" Perhaps, when compared to the Chinese(3k yrs old) or Japanese(5th C). But if we limit ourselves to just Europe then your statement is false."

Turkish surnames were only instituted in the 1920's. Many were made up on the spot by Mustafa Kemal for his followers. He made up "Atatürk" (Father of the turks) for himself.

well, I found it interesting ...

BM
"Turkish surnames were only instituted in the 1920's. Many were made up on the spot...
well, I found it interesting ..."

The Finns did something similar in the 19th C, they had a "national awakening" and under a process called "Fennicization" many names were created or translated into Finnish. AFAIK.

The Chinese select western first names all the time, for use in business. It's very annoying. It's hard to keep a straight face when dealing with someone called Iceman or Hunter.

maca: "The Chinese select western first names all the time, for use in business. It's very annoying. It's hard to keep a straight face when dealing with someone called Iceman or Hunter."

Try the other extreme on for size -- working in a oceanology lab / workshop where all the grad students are "Wang." Wang Wei, Wang Chin and Wang Tse Min... a real barrel of laughs, it was like an Abbot and Costello routine, trying to get anything done.