Energy savings, the ESB and Irish language

oscarBravo

It would appear certain Irish speakers feel they are exempt.

Back on topic.

jank

NewDubliner wrote: »

That's not how things work in 2009.

You want us to pay for something, you have to tell us the price first, in Euro, to the nearest million will do. But with details of how calculated.

Until then, no more money.

OK Brian!:pac:

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, people never complain about their taxes being gobbled up by the HSE or anything like that, do they?

I never they didn't.

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s sort of the problem, isn’t it? There seems to be an unswerving support for promoting the language, regardless of cost. That, in my opinion, is pretty daft.

No. You are assuming that! But until the figures are known then its a non arguement. Saying something costs too much when we dont even know how much it costs is in my opinion is pretty daft.

djpbarry wrote: »

No it isn’t. As you say, pretty much everyone agrees that the leaflets are a waste.

Sure it is!:rolleyes: 16 pages and counting and the only reason for this is because it involved the Irish Language.
Where is the 16 page thread where we all agree on stupid junk mail?

djpbarry wrote: »

You haven’t been looking very hard – the subject of junk mail comes up fairly regularly over on the Green Issues forum.

So why are we discusing this on politics? Mods please move.

djpbarry wrote: »

How much is “a very minute %”?

You tell me.

djpbarry wrote: »

If anyone’s ranting, it’s posters such as Rebelheart, who refuse to listen to anyone questioning the state’s commitment to the promotion of the Irish language.

This thread is about ESB waste, not the States commitment to the Irish language.

djpbarry wrote: »

How do you know I have not? How do you know that I have not made every effort to ensure that junk mail is not delivered to my home?

Maybe you have maybe you have not but its all a daft game we are playing here dont you think.

NewDubliner

jank wrote: »

Saying something costs too much when we dont even know how much it costs is in my opinion is pretty daft.

It's daft to commit to do something when you don't know how much its going to cost you.

jank wrote: »

This thread is about ESB waste, not the States commitment to the Irish language.

The ESB is observing an obligation imposed on it by the Official Languages Act. This act commits us to unlimited costs in providing Irish langauge services to people who speak English.:rolleyes:

Grudaire

NewDubliner wrote: »

The ESB is observing an obligation imposed on it by the Official Languages Act. This act commits us to unlimited costs in providing Irish langauge services to people who speak English.:rolleyes:

Would you back a statement up for once son

Joey the lips

This has gotten so daft. Do away with english make it simple. You dont here the english complain cause there goverment produces its documents in so many languages. Dress it what ever way you want, this is not a savings thread its an anti irish tread and if there really is a problem why dont you just leave the country. There is a guaranteed saving straight away! you will be practising what you prech.

Irish is hear to stay and I pity the goverment that proposes its removal.

Do you know how long it took us to get it an official europen language. Cultures smaller than hours have there language reconised and here are the daft trying to argue its demise.

jank

NewDubliner wrote: »

It's daft to commit to do something when you don't know how much its going to cost you.

Read my post again.

NewDubliner wrote: »

The ESB is observing an obligation imposed on it by the Official Languages Act. This act commits us to unlimited costs in providing Irish langauge services to people who speak English.:rolleyes:

Unlimited? Like ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!:pac:

Driseog

How much bullcrap in English comes through peoples' letter boxes every day?
From what I can see the Irish Language is recognised in both Irish and European law and there are lots of people like myself that don't live in Gaeltachts that would prefer to get this sort of info as Gaelige, so if people don't like it, as someone else said, move to an all English speaking paradise where you don't have to worry your little head about a minority language appearing on any of your daily post.

jimmmy

Driseog wrote: »

How much bullcrap in English comes through peoples' letter boxes every day?

How much " bullcrap in English " is sold in newsagents and bookshops, versus how much " bullcrap in Irish " is sold in newsagents and bookshops?

That shows you the demand for the Irish language. The govt should save billions and help the environment , and stop wasting as much on Irish as it does.

djpbarry

Cliste wrote: »

Are you sure - have you even asked O'Cuiv's department, or is this an assumption?

I think what NewDubliner says is accurate. Every department is responsible for their own expenditure – nobody (that I am aware of) is actually keeping tabs on the cost of producing documentation in Irish. It’s up to each individual department to keep tabs.

Cliste wrote: »

You then give out about a figure that I'm apparently hiding up my sleeve...

What? Unless I’m very much mistaken, I’m the only poster who has provided any kind of indication of the cost of translating documents into Irish.

Cliste wrote: »

And then you proceed to openly assume things.

Once again, I have only assumed that people will not willingly pay for something that they can’t read. You think that’s an unreasonable assumption?

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

No. You are assuming that! But until the figures are known then its a non arguement. Saying something costs too much when we dont even know how much it costs is in my opinion is pretty daft.

No, I’m not assuming. I have asked whether the promotion of the Irish language should be pursued regardless of the cost and I don’t recall receiving too many (if any) definitive answers.

As for costs, like I said, I’ve produced some figures that give an indication of how much translation of documents into Irish costs, so it’s not a complete unknown (and it’s certainly not an insignificant sum).

Joey the lips wrote: »

Do you know how long it took us to get it an official europen language.

Was it worth it?

Grudaire

Listen - you can go off and find the rest of the figures and report back. Until then don't claim that I'm somehow hiding them. You even say that you 'think that...' Why not ask?

djpbarry wrote: »

Once again, I have only assumed that people will not willingly pay for something that they can’t read. You think that’s an unreasonable assumption?

Well I don't like the idea of paying for anything that I don't use. For example 99% of all leaflets/reports (in fact the ESB leaflet is probably one of the few that I would read), PPARS, electronic voting, Tribunals, Social welfare, the Government Jet, Garda escorts.

However as a fellow taxpayer I am all for keeping the current small proportion that is being spent on the Irish language. Especially when I will use these services as Gaeilge.

Sure why are my taxes paying for any services in English?:rolleyes:

djpbarry

Cliste wrote: »

Listen - you can go off and find the rest of the figures and report back. Until then don't claim that I'm somehow hiding them.

I have no idea what you're talking about; I never claimed any such thing.

Cliste wrote: »

Well I don't like the idea of paying for anything that I don't use. For example 99% of all leaflets/reports (in fact the ESB leaflet is probably one of the few that I would read), PPARS, electronic voting, Tribunals, Social welfare, the Government Jet, Garda escorts.

Maybe they're not sued by you (or me), but they're being used by someone.

Cliste wrote: »

Sure why are my taxes paying for any services in English?

You're missing the point by focusing on a particular language - the argument is against unnecessary translation/duplication, not the language itself.

NewDubliner

Cliste wrote: »

Would you back a statement up for once son

I'm astonished that someone as fanatical as you about the Irish langauge is not already familar with the provisions of the Official Languages Act. Perhaps it explains the ignorance contained in your postings. I have summarised the main points for you.

9 -Duty of public bodies to use official languages on official stationery, etc.
(3) Where a public body communicates in writing or by electronic mail with the general public or a class of the general public for the purpose of furnishing information to the public or the class, the body shall ensure that the communication is in the Irish language or in the English and Irish languages.

10.Duty of public bodies to publish certain documents in both official languages simultaneously.
Notwithstanding any other enactment, the following documents made by or under the authority of a public body ....
(a) any document setting out public policy proposal
(b) any annual report;
(c) any audited account or financial statement;
(d) any statement of strategy required to be prepared under section 5 of the Public Service Management Act 1997 ; and
(e) any document of a description or class standing prescribed for the time being, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and such other (if any) Minister of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate having regard to the functions of that other Minister of the Government, and being a document of a description or class that is, in the opinion of the Minister, of major public importance.

11Use of official languages by public bodies.
1) For the purpose of promoting the use of the Irish language for official purposes in the State, the Minister may, by notice in writing to the head of a public body, require the public body to prepare and present to him or her for confirmation within such time (not being more than 6 months from the date of issue of the notice) as is specified in the notice a draft scheme specifying—
(a) the services which the public body proposes to provide—
(i) exclusively through the medium of the Irish language.
(ii) exclusively through the medium of the English language, and
(iii) through the medium of both the Irish and English languages,
and
(b) the measures the body proposes to adopt to ensure that any services that are not provided by the body through the medium of the Irish language will be so provided.

List of Public Bodies

So, as you can see it's a pretty tall order and likely to be very expensive.

dlofnep

NewDubliner wrote: »

So, as you can see it's a pretty tall order and likely to be very expensive.

Good - Nobody said preservation of a language was going to be easy. I'm happy they are willing to put in the effort.

Sand

Good - Nobody said preservation of a language was going to be easy. I'm happy they are willing to put in the effort.

You consider that to be preservation of the language?

It doesnt achieve anything except waste money. It doesnt do *anything* to improve the Irish language. Not a thing. Its another example of the foolish, costly schemes which have only seen the Irish langauge decline, decline and decline.

Its just a level above reintroducing the penal laws in the effect it has for saving Irish.

Grudaire

djpbarry wrote: »

I have no idea what you're talking about; I never claimed any such thing.

Aye but NewDubliner said this "The absence of any details of the cost and the considerable reluctance of the act's supporters to discuss the cost?" - I'm willing to discuss the cost - you'll have to provide the figures though.

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe they're not sued by you (or me), but they're being used by someone.

*facepalm* Thats what I'm trying to say to you - thanks for putting it so well (Note: Electronic voting is not used by anyone)

djpbarry wrote: »

You're missing the point by focusing on a particular language - the argument is against unnecessary translation/duplication, not the language itself.

Would you be happy if we started printing half the documents in Irish only?

NewDubliner wrote: »

I'm astonished that someone as fanatical as you about the Irish langauge is not already familar with the provisions of the Official Languages Act. Perhaps it explains the ignorance contained in your postings. I have summarised the main points for you.

Ignorance? Please do explain (I sorry if I don't have the figures for spending to hand - but then again why the hell would I?) You should know where you can shove your poxy ignorance.

I would like to add (as I see that my post was ambiguous) that I was refering to the 'unlimited costs'. The only way that we would be spending 1000 on a translation of a document is if we spend far far far more making it as Béarla (given the consultations, design etc etc that goes into making any of the documents listed).

Now looking at the list you kindly supplied, I am surprised at the sheer ammount of public bodies. Perhaps we don't need all of them?

NewDubliner wrote: »

So, as you can see it's a pretty tall order and likely to be very expensive.

Nothing in life is free. But I'll let your taxes pay for the making of the report, and mine, dlofneps, rebelheart, driseog and jank's pay for the translation

dlofnep

Sand wrote: »

You consider that to be preservation of the language?

I sure do. It's one of the many areas of immersion required for a language to survive. Print, media, radio, work and so forth. It's not my opinion, it just happens to be fact.

Sand wrote: »

It doesnt achieve anything except waste money.

In terms of the actual leaflet itself - I think we've all come to the conclusion that it's a useless document, regardless of the language. But other more important documents made available bilingually achieve a great amount.

Sand wrote: »

It doesnt do *anything* to improve the Irish language.

It doesn't do anything to improve the English language either. But that's not it's intent. It's intent is to give information on the ESB, or did you forget?

Sand wrote: »

Not a thing. Its another example of the foolish, costly schemes which have only seen the Irish langauge decline, decline and decline.

The Irish language is not declining - and is seeing a surge again, especially with young people - with the likes of Des Bishop and Hector bringing it to light. I am apart of a healthy Irish conversational group and we are at this point, keeping a local bar in business on a Thursday night.

Sand wrote: »

Its just a level above reintroducing the penal laws in the effect it has for saving Irish.

Poppycock.

NewDubliner

Cliste wrote: »

Ignorance? Please do explain (I sorry if I don't have the figures for spending to hand - but then again why the hell would I?) You should know where you can shove your poxy ignorance.

Your command of English vulgarity is all the explanation anyone would need.

Cliste wrote: »

Now looking at the list you kindly supplied, I am surprised at the sheer amount of public bodies. Perhaps we don't need all of them?

Is this the first time you've seen the list?

Sand

I sure do. It's one of the many areas of immersion required for a language to survive. Print, media, radio, work and so forth. It's not my opinion, it just happens to be fact.

In terms of the actual leaflet itself - I think we've all come to the conclusion that it's a useless document, regardless of the language

Right, so the Irish language is being saved by translating useless documents from English to Irish?

Thats the plan to save Irish?

You talk about immersion, but translating useless documents that no one reads is not immersion. No wonder Irish is dead if its relying on creative thinking like "Lets translate a load of boring legal documents into Irish - thatll get everyone interested in reading it. Yay Irish is saved. Now lets all go out and drink glue!"

It doesn't do anything to improve the English language either. But that's not it's intent. It's intent is to give information on the ESB, or did you forget?

No, you have already stated its required to save the Irish language. Thats the only cause for it to be legally required to translate it into Irish.

The Irish language is not declining - and is seeing a surge again, especially with young people - with the likes of Des Bishop and Hector bringing it to light. I am apart of a healthy Irish conversational group and we are at this point, keeping a local bar in business on a Thursday night.

Irish has declined to such a level that you might mistake it being used at all outside of a state requirement as some massive upswing. That in itself is indicative of its death. English doesnt need saving, Irish does. Draw your own conclusion.

Poppycock.

Oh youre right, forcing people to learn, forcing them to memorise by rote and churn out a few phrases to pass an exam or take a state job....yeah, its clearly the path to great success.

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I’m not assuming. I have asked whether the promotion of the Irish language should be pursued regardless of the cost and I don’t recall receiving too many (if any) definitive answers.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we should spend something like 30% of our GDP on it. However, some people make out as if this is how much it costs without any proof of this. The Joe Duffy types.

Your comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. Using a private business cost model to suggest it costs the same to translate documents in state departments is wrong. As far as i know each department would have a few translators employed by them in full time jobs (maybe clsite can clarify this) but this is how it works afaik. I don't think this costs the tax payers billions, even when you add in 3rd party costs like paper, ink, distribution etc.
So yea for every euro of tax taken off me it is fair under reasonable assumptions to say it is a very minute % of it goes to the Irish Language. Otherwise one is just trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Remember the total budget is 50 odd billion. What is a reasonable figure by your standards to spend?


I know a hell of a lot more of my tax goes to fund schools (when I don't have kids), hospitals (I have private insurance) and public pensions (when I have my own private one). Do you think that is fair?

djpbarry wrote: »

As for costs, like I said, I’ve produced some figures that give an indication of how much translation of documents into Irish costs, so it’s not a complete unknown (and it’s certainly not an insignificant sum).
Was it worth it?

See above!

jank

Sand wrote: »

Right, so the Irish language is being saved by translating useless documents from English to Irish?

Thats the plan to save Irish?.


You talk about immersion, but translating useless documents that no one reads is not immersion. No wonder Irish is dead if its relying on creative thinking like "Lets translate a load of boring legal documents into Irish - thatll get everyone interested in reading it. Yay Irish is saved. Now lets all go out and drink glue!"

No, you have already stated its required to save the Irish language. Thats the only cause for it to be legally required to translate it into Irish.

I fairness Sand its only one aspect of it and you know that.

Sand wrote: »

Irish has declined to such a level that you might mistake it being used at all outside of a state requirement as some massive upswing. That in itself is indicative of its death. English doesn't need saving, Irish does. Draw your own conclusion.

In fairness Sand, the Irish language is going through a bit of a renaissance the last few years. Your blind if you think otherwise. 90% odd of people support it. Thats a fairly big mandate and i know you are all about democracy and the right of the people....arent you?;)

The generation 30 and under that is coming though generally has allot more respect for it than previous generations. I know that from experience.

I think the gaelscoilanna has been a huge success. Kids are growing up learning it as they should any language by using it in an everyday environment and thus being better at it, not hating it as much (as its not beaten into them) and have a much more positive outlook on it then previously.

Sand wrote: »

Oh you're right, forcing people to learn, forcing them to memorize by rote and churn out a few phrases to pass an exam or take a state job....yeah, its clearly the path to great success.

Well it's successful for every student who wants to go to 3rd level so it must be the right way to do things!:pac:

We do it for pretty much every subject, don't we Sand, weather its English or history or geography. The LC is pretty much a learn by rote exam. Saying that Irish is the only subject that we do this to again ignoring the reality to suit your arguments.

By the way I would welcome any reform of the LC.

So yea ESB and waste eh...yea... hmmm..

NewDubliner

jank wrote: »

I don't think anyone is suggesting we should spend something like 30% of our GDP on it. However, some people make out as if this is how much it costs without any proof of this. .... As far as i know each department would have a few translators employed by them in full time jobs (maybe clsite can clarify this) but this is how it works afaik. I don't think this costs the tax payers billions, even when you add in 3rd party costs like paper, ink, distribution etc.

It's not just about translation, its also about have employing experts in every domain, capable of providing service in Irish, when demanded by Irish speakers. It's about conversion and maintenance of online computer services to operate in Irish and English.

The Irish lobby is putting up a smoke screen around the scandal of the OLA, first by trying to shunt the topic over to 'green issues', then by pretending that the scope of the OLA is just a few leaflets, and alway by stubbornly refusing to accept that the costs should be controlled - accusing anyone who questions this as being anti-Irish.

To summarise the position: many Irish people are in favour of preserving Irish - as long as somebody else speaks it. The Irish speakers themselves are in favour of spending loads-of-money as long as it is somebody else's.:rolleyes:

Grudaire

NewDubliner wrote: »

Your command of English vulgarity is all the explanation anyone would need.

Perhaps I should try in Irish?

NewDubliner wrote: »

Is this the first time you've seen the list?

Yes.


And I'm glad that my ignorance has lead you to picking out the insignificant bits of my post. AND hang on - How's it someone else's money?

Driseog

By no means is translating all state literature going to save the language and successive governments havn't done enough for the language. But in my opinion the only way the language can be fully revived is to give it some sort of economic value, its lack of is one of the reasons it declined in the first place. And by having it recognised by the EU does go someway to doing that. Now people are employed in all government departments and agencies soley for their Irish skills. There is a popular demand to restore the language so its important to have out in the public arena for those who wish to use it.

jank

NewDubliner wrote: »

It's not just about translation, its also about have employing experts in every domain, capable of providing service in Irish, when demanded by Irish speakers. It's about conversion and maintenance of online computer services to operate in Irish and English.

Is it reasonable to assume that these "experts" provide a service in both languages? I know of one such expert in the dept of finance. He does most of his day to day work in English but has to do stuff in Irish now and again. about a 75/25 break down.
I fail to see the huge cost in this as he would be in a job regardless if there was Irish or not.

NewDubliner wrote: »

The Irish lobby is putting up a smoke screen around the scandal of the OLA, first by trying to shunt the topic over to 'green issues', then by pretending that the scope of the OLA is just a few leaflets, and alway by stubbornly refusing to accept that the costs should be controlled - accusing anyone who questions this as being anti-Irish..

Can you back that up please where the all mighty powerful Irish lobby can click their fingers and get what they want? They only people complaining about this being a green issue is the OP which is on your side:eek:

And for god sake read my post, no body here is saying we should spend an infinite amount of money on Irish, only you trying to make a proxy argument.

ALL COSTS SHOULD BE CONTROLLED!

NewDubliner wrote: »

To summarise the position: many Irish people are in favour of preserving Irish - as long as somebody else speaks it. The Irish speakers themselves are in favour of spending loads-of-money as long as it is somebody else's.:rolleyes:

So you know how 4.6 million Irish people think now. Some advice, run for office if you do. Oh, Irish speakers are tax payers too.
:pac:
TBH this is getting boring now.....

jank

And I'm glad that my ignorance has lead you to picking out the insignificant bits of my post.

I agree, one can post 4 pages of an argument yet he will take issue with one small point, ignore all the other points one has made and then make assumptions based on what we don't say even though his question has been answered many time before in points that he conveniently ignored in the first place.

There is nothing new in what is said here.

Wash, Rinse and repeat. Its a true tested formula to getting a topic, off-topic.:D

dlofnep

Sand wrote: »

Right, so the Irish language is being saved by translating useless documents from English to Irish?

It's not being "saved". It's being preserved through immersion. And one of those aspects of immersion is national print. Now - as for the leaflet in question (which I think has totally blown out of proportion) - It is in print bilingually because our national language is Irish. And in an effort to ensure it has a fair chance in the public domain, all documents will be printed bilingually.

That has no bearing on the document in question, as nobody seems to care about it - regardless of the language - but other documents are made available bilingually - and yes, it certainly does assist the Irish language. All media printed to me as Gaeilge and in English, I will read the Gaeilge version to help me better understand the language.

Sand wrote: »

Thats the plan to save Irish?

It plays a part in a greater plan. Although, you seem bitter towards it either way - so in reality, there is no reasoning with you.. Although, I'll entertain the argument for the sake of wasting a few minutes.

Sand wrote: »

You talk about immersion, but translating useless documents that no one reads is not immersion.

So, would you consider other more important documents printed bilingual as not playing a part in language immersion? I sincerely doubt it. Which would lead me to believe that you are using this one case as an excuse to bash the Irish language.

And YES - printing documents bilingually is apart of language immersion. I implore you to actually read up on the factors of language survival and why immersion, national print not withstanding is very important for language survivability..

Sand wrote: »

No wonder Irish is dead if its relying on creative thinking like "Lets translate a load of boring legal documents into Irish - thatll get everyone interested in reading it. Yay Irish is saved. Now lets all go out and drink glue!"

You keep stating that it's "dead" - But yet, I've just come back from 3 hours in a pub, without one word uttered in the English language. The Irish language is very much alive for me, and many others who have had the chance to become semi-fluent to fluent in it.

Sand wrote: »

No, you have already stated its required to save the Irish language. Thats the only cause for it to be legally required to translate it into Irish.

You're taking it completely out of context. Bilingual print is important for language survivability. It isn't the "only" process in place to ensure of that survivability. This one single document has no bearing on the overall importance of more important documents that are printed bilingually.

Sand wrote: »

Oh youre right, forcing people to learn, forcing them to memorise by rote and churn out a few phrases to pass an exam or take a state job....yeah, its clearly the path to great success.

I never stated anything about remembering phrases to pass an exam. You don't know the first thing about me, so don't assume. I'm an Irish language activist, and one of my key principles is refining the curriculum so that the likes of what you just mentioned is no longer apart of the curriculum - but rather an immersion environment, allowing pupils to receive fluency in the language before they even reach their junior cert.

NewDubliner

jank wrote: »

Is it reasonable to assume that these "experts" provide a service in both languages?

No, it adds to the cost of public administration at a time when we're trying to reduce them. It is not essential for these services to be in Irish. We know that all Irish speakers have a very good command of English (our common language), some are quite expert in its lower forms too.

jank wrote: »

Can you back that up please where the all mighty powerful Irish lobby can click their fingers and get what they want?

The passing of a law obliging all government departments and bodies to provide documents and services in Irish? A law which sets no limit on the cost? A blank cheque for Irish?

jank wrote: »

And for god sake read my post, no body here is saying we should spend an infinite amount of money on Irish

The Irish lobby has been very evasive on this point. Nobody on the Irish side is prepared to set a limit on how much will be spent on services that will only be used by a small number of people.

There may be goodwill for the preservation of Irish but there is no evidence of demand for services in Irish.

jank wrote: »

This is getting boring now.....

A public waste scandal has been exposed.

Grudaire

NewDubliner wrote: »

A public waste scandal has been exposed.

It's not waste though. I think this is the big disagreement between us. It's not a waste for us who will use the services