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

cyclopath2001

starbelgrade wrote: »

playing gaelic games

Coddle - isn't that an old English word?

Republic/President - not a native Irish concept at all, what about High Kings, Brehon Law and Druids etc?

Just how ancient/Irish are those Gaelic games?

whatdoicare

What the heck is coddle? Isn't that something you do? "Coddle" a child meaning to mammy them?

Joey the lips

whatdoicare wrote: »

What the heck is coddle? Isn't that something you do? "Coddle" a child meaning to mammy them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coddle

Coddle!

cyclopath2001

whatdoicare wrote: »

What the heck is coddle? Isn't that something you do? "Coddle" a child meaning to mammy them?

It's a recipe for a pork/potato stew (usually made with sausages) especially enjoyed by poor Dublin people. The word 'coddle' derives from the old English 'caudel' which can mean to warm-up or give comfort.

It's part of Ireland's ancient, non-gaelic tradition.

dlofnep

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

So there is a limit on the spending on Irish langauge services? How much is that limit? From what I can tell, the cost will mount in the future as many departments have not yet fully complied with your lobby's demands.

All funding requests must be passed. The fact that the only Irish spot in my city was closed due to lack of funds is categoric proof that there is a limit to the spending. They give what they feel is necessary. Obviously, you disagree with what is necessary, This is where the problem enlies, because the topic is entirely subjective.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

We are not a bilingual nation. This is not Canada.

Yes we are a bilingual nation. Obviously Irish is stronger in some areas than others - but are most certainly a bilingual nation. And with a good portion of polish speakers now, we are pretty much a multilingual nation at this point.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Of course it would detrimental, the state has been very generous to you with the Celtic Tiger's bounty. but we all have to accept cuts. We're not rich anymore.

Of course we have to accept cuts, but this isn't really about cuts. This all stems from the anti-Irish lobby who don't wish to implement cuts, but rather remove state support completely.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

No need for a referendum. Just pass a law and abolish Mr O'Cuiv's expensive department and repeal the OLA.

Not very democratic is it? That's fascism. I do not live in a fascist state, and if state support for Irish was removed - it would be against the wishes of the majority of this state. That is a fact.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

But how much state support? Could you not make some concessions to the rest if us and accept less?

Why should I accept less? Why should my language be chastised because a minority wish to see it removed? Why should the majority of the people who support the language be dictated by a minority? What you preach is authoritarianism. Until you provide a credible survey that demonstrates lack of public support for the Irish language, any suggestions for destroying state support for it is not democratic.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Think of the number of sick children you could save if you put aside your pride and accepted services in English.

More hyperbole. Like I said, if our health minister and other government cronies weren't misusing public funds, and weren't running our country into the ground - we would have more than enough funds to cater for Irish comfortably. For now, while the economy is piss-poor, Irish, like everywhere else will need "cuts" - but upon an economic recovery they should be re-instated.

Like I said - I don't truly believe this is a debate on cutting funds to Irish. Those who have expressed their feelings on it come from a completely stronger stance that actively want state support removed entirely. I object to this, like the majority of this country.

starbelgrade

whatdoicare wrote: »

"Coddle" a child

There's laws against that - you're safer using sausages.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And why would they Latin is not one of the national languages of Ireland.

Since the foundation of the Gaelic League in 1893, we have seen consistent, orchestrated efforts to revive the Irish language. And what do we have to show for all that effort and money?

There only has been significant money thrown at the language in recent times. Please provide references to prove your point otherwise. There has never been any concerted effort worth talking about to revive it since the Gaelic League. The languages Act being a one off change.

there is absolutely no rationale for spending millions each year to translate documents

Yes there is. It is one of our two national languages. If you want to stop the translations you must repeal the Languages Act. Talk to your TD and good luck.

By doing so, we are just caving in to petty nationalistic sentiment—those who say, in effect, "Yes, I can understand English just fine, but I prefer to read the Lisbon Treaty as Gaeilge, so I demand that you translate it into my 'native tongue' for me."

"We" are not caving into anything. The EU decides to translate all languages of its constituent nations for publications from the council and parliament.

Even regional languages like Galician and Catalan are translated. If you want this to stop talk to your MEP and ask him to try and convince the Council of Europe otherwise. You could also go back to your TD and ask him that as well as repealing the Languages Act could he also persuade the Dail to ensure that its not reinstated as a regional language which would also be translated?
Again good luck

Sand wrote: »

No longer is it a question of whether the amount of money we spend on aspirational projects like Irish is best spent when we are cutting back on life and death medical tests for Irish children. No. That is not comfortable ground.

But medical tests would come from the HSE budget would it not? Have you heard that any money saved on the Irish language will be rolled back into treatment for cervical cancer? Who told you this?

Come back to me when you are ready to discuss just how *critical* you think open ended drunken sailor spending on Irish is when spending on cancer tests for children is being cut back.

Have you demanded your TD/Political party lobby to move funds to "cancer tests" or you will withdraw support? Come back to us when you really think this issue is critical enough to get off your arse.

I tend to give greater weight to the cancer tests for kids. Sue me

Wont sue you, but if a great advocate of "cancer tests for kids" hlike yourself has done nothing but Bull-**** about it on forums then I wont take your argument seriously.

starbelgrade wrote: »

...........that for the vast majority of the country, it is essentially a dead

That is untrue. Speak only for yourself please unless you can prove otherwise.

donegalfella wrote: »

Great post, Sand. Really hits the nail on the head.

Here we go Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber!


.......

But I'm afraid that there are people in this country so stubbornly nationalistic that nothing—and I mean nothing—is a higher priority than making sure that the Irish language is shoved in everyone's face every hour of every day whether they like it or not. No amount of spending on Irish can ever be too much for them. This is a mentality that I just don't understand

Again it is the Irish government who introduced the Languages Bill which means that some public documents are translated to. Are they the ones who are stubbornly nationalistic. The EU decides to translate some of its documents into languages both national and regional. Are they the ones who are stubbornly Irish nationalist?

I think we can see what the Irish language has been up against when anyone who supports it (a language that 300,000 people spoke fluently in 1921) is considered anti-British.

Irish is the language of a parochial, insular, romantic nationalism that had great appeal in the late 19th and early 20th century, but that no longer does.

Again the familiar age old attack. This type of attack was made against Irish by the Catholic church after the famine (when the vast majority of the population spoke it). It was made by the establishment then and is still the main argument against it. If you speak Irish you are backward (insular), your kids will end up in bare feet and starving again.

It speaks a lot more of the insecurities of the people doing the attacking than those and the language they are attacking.

starbelgrade wrote: »

How much money is spent/ wasted on teaching Irish to kids who will never use it / don't care about it?

How much is spent on English poetry, prose etc that kids resent will never use. Lets snip that too!
[/QUOTE]

donegalfella wrote: »

Have you read the Lisbon Treaty? How many people do you know who have read the Lisbon Treaty? Now, how many people do you think have read the Treaty in Irish? Are we perhaps talking about four or five people, at most? So what is the justification for spending €30 million annually to translate every EU document into Irish?

I know what you mean. Look at all the money we spend on bloody wheelchair access in every building now. And how many people use these facilities? 1 or 2 per building sometimes none!!!
I can certainly think of better things to spend our money on in these cash strapped times. So could we all....

Since every Irish speaker in this country also speaks English, demanding such translations is a matter of stubborn nationalistic pride rather than actual linguistic necessity. The Irish nationalist demands the right to read the Lisbon Treaty in Irish—even when he has no intention of ever doing so. And he demands that the taxpayer bear the burden of the cost.

Again this extremely insecure attack on the Irish language as just a tool of the Irish nationalist. Once more with feeling: It is the EU which decides to translate the Lisbon treaty into the languages of its constituent countries. It is not "The Irish Nationalist".

whatdoicare

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's a recipe for a pork/potato stew (usually made with sausages) especially enjoyed by poor Dublin people. The word 'coddle' derives from the old English 'caudel' which can mean to warm-up or give comfort.

It's part of Ireland's ancient, non-gaelic tradition.

Ah, thank you I'm Irish and have never heard of, tasted or seen it on a menu- woudn't be really that Irish then. Sounds more like a Spanish dish- chorizo and potato stew.

starbelgrade

dlofnep wrote: »

I object to this, like the majority of this country.

Do you have any facts or figures to back this up?

dlofnep

starbelgrade wrote: »

Do you have any facts or figures to back this up?

Do you have any figures to counter my claim? When you find them, let me know. They don't exist. Public opinion polls have always favoured the language.

The majority of Irish people support the language.

starbelgrade

T runner wrote: »

Look at all the money we spend on bloody wheelchair access in every building now. And how many people use these facilities?

Ouch - wheelchair access is not just for people confined to wheelchairs.. it also includes people with mobility difficulties. Ireland were very progressive in enforcing this in that we make sure that all new builds were accessible to everyone.

The number of people who use them is irrelevant - the less people that actually do have to use them, the better. God forbid you, me or anyone else ends up having to do so.

starbelgrade

whatdoicare wrote: »

Ah, thank you I'm Irish and have never heard of, tasted or seen it on a menu- woudn't be really that Irish then. Sounds more like a Spanish dish- chorizo and potato stew.

Chorizo is a lot stronger in flavour than yr Irish sausage... it is kinda similar though in the way it's cooked to some of the Spanish stews.

starbelgrade

dlofnep wrote: »

Do you have any figures to counter my claim?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing one way or the other, but I'm not the one speaking for the nation.

whatdoicare

starbelgrade wrote: »

Chorizo is a lot stronger in flavour than yr Irish sausage... it is kinda similar though in the way it's cooked to some of the Spanish stews.

Yeah I know- I have eaten it. Just saying it sounds more like that kind of dish than an irish dish- sausage not being a traditional Irish food.

Blackjack

The Potato isn't Native to this Continent.

eddyc

Is there any other reason other than the fact that the majority of people used to speak it here, and a tiny minority speak it as their first language, as to why the Irish language should have so much government money spent on it? Serious question.

T runner

starbelgrade wrote: »

Ouch - wheelchair access is not just for people confined to wheelchairs.. it also includes people with mobility difficulties. Ireland were very progressive in enforcing this in that we make sure that all new builds were accessible to everyone.

The number of people who use them is irrelevant - the less people that actually do have to use them, the better. God forbid you, me or anyone else ends up having to do so.

Its your argument not mine:

Some people have to use these facilities but very few. You amongst others sited the reason that a majority of people dont use Irish as a reason to discontinue funding. Would you also discontinue funding for access for people with mobility problems for the same reason? (The holy goat forbid you never have to us them)

dlofnep

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing one way or the other, but I'm not the one speaking for the nation.

Neither am I - I am relaying the common opinion seen time and time again in opinion polls - which stands straight against the idea that the language has no support.

thebman

dlofnep wrote: »

Neither am I - I am relaying the common opinion seen time and time again in opinion polls - which stands straight against the idea that the language has no support.

Supporting and being willing to spend money on are two different things.

I support F1 but Bernie Ecclestone comes asking for a donation to fund a new track, I'll tell his billionaire arse to fook right off.

So what was the question asked in these polls? Did it ask about how we should fund it or how much should be spent or if they supported funding books nobody reads?

Also how many of these surveys have been done since the nation went bankrupt? If you ask people would they rather all documents were available in Irish with a 1% increase in tax or would you rather not have the increase and have no documents available in Irish, which do you think people would pick?

T runner

eddyc wrote: »

Is there any other reason other than the fact that the majority of people used to speak it here, and a tiny minority speak it as their first language, as to why the Irish language should have so much government money spent on it? Serious question.

Why how much money is spent on it. Serious question?

The fact that it has been spoken here for millennia is one reason.

You would have 3 thousand years of words, ideas etc formed through the language. So the gaelic language would be extremely "Irish" if that makes sense. Nearly all the placenenames are in Gaelic.

Thousand of our kids are being taught in Irish schools. Maybe that generation should be the one to ultimately decide if it dies.

Future generations may not look so kindly on us if we let an indiginous language die without making some sort of effort to keep it alive.


The question should be have we any good rerason to let the language die?

starbelgrade

T runner wrote: »

Its your argument not mine:

Some people have to use these facilities but very few. You amongst others sited the reason that a majority of people dont use Irish as a reason to discontinue funding. Would you also discontinue funding for access for people with mobility problems for the same reason? (The holy goat forbid you never have to us them)

Yes, very few people have to use these facilities & very few people speak Irish, but they are completely & utterly seperate issues.

I never once said that funding to the Irish language should be discontinued. I never once said that the majority rule should rule. I do however agree with the OP, in that it is, without doubt, a good idea to discuss how much the funding towards it costs us.

No-one is going to suffer from not getting a biligual leaflet through their letterbox. No-one is going to suffer from not having the Lisbon Treaty translated into Irish. Some people will suffer from not being able to get into public buildings or their own home. There is no comparison between the two.

And please let it be noted, that I did not make that comparison & that I disagreed wholeheartedly with even the notion of it.

eddyc

T runner wrote: »

Its your argument not mine:

Some people have to use these facilities but very few. You amongst others sited the reason that a majority of people dont use Irish as a reason to discontinue funding. Would you also discontinue funding for access for people with mobility problems for the same reason? (The holy goat forbid you never have to us them)

Thats not fair, someone needing access because of a disability is nothing compared to needing a document translated to them in another language.

Are there people in Ireland that only speak Irish and can't learn another language and cannot get anyone to translate something into irish now?

starbelgrade

dlofnep wrote: »

Neither am I - I am relaying the common opinion seen time and time again in opinion polls - which stands straight against the idea that the language has no support.

Opinion polls mean nothing. You cannot claim to have the majority backing based on a poll of how many people? Of what demographic? And run by who?

I could do an opinion poll tomorrow myself, that would counteract any other opinion poll.

So, I too could also speak for the majority if I so chose.

thebman

T runner wrote: »

Why how much money is spent on it. Serious question?

The fact that it has been spoken here for millennia is one reason.

You would have 3 thousand years of words, ideas etc formed through the language. So the gaelic language would be extremely "Irish" if that makes sense. Nearly all the placenenames are in Gaelic.

Thousand of our kids are being taught in Irish schools. Maybe that generation should be the one to ultimately decide if it dies.

Future generations may not look so kindly on us if we let an indiginous language die without making some sort of effort to keep it alive.


The question should be have we any good rerason to let the language die?

Seriously if it is that much a part of our culture, making it optional in school and not translating documents into it needlessly won't finish it off.

If this kills it off, it was already dead.

eddyc

T runner wrote: »

The fact that it has been spoken here for millennia is one reason.

They spoke latin too, Languages are not static, they change over time and just because irish was spoken here for millenia as you claim does not mean that we should forever speak irish on this island as if the island and the language were somehow dependent on each other.

Should they all be speaking a myriad of native american languages in the US then?

T runner wrote: »

Nearly all the placenenames are in Gaelic.

Why should the place names dictate what language people speak?

T runner wrote: »

Thousand of our kids are being taught in Irish schools. Maybe that generation should be the one to ultimately decide if it dies.

I was one of the thousands of children being thought irish in our schools, do I have no say then?

T runner wrote: »

Future generations may not look so kindly on us if we let an indiginous language die without making some sort of effort to keep it alive.

There are many books that you can buy to learn irish, you can learn it on the internet, I'm sure those resources will be there for a long time.

Sand

Man this thread clips along at a real pace...


@Dlofnep

Nonsense. The poster was trying to divert all the blame for lack of good healthcare on the Irish language. It was unfair, and typical hyperbole.

Opportunity cost my good man - every euro spent translating documents that no one ever reads into Irish is a euro that is not spent on providing cancer tests for kids.

Think of the kids.

I'm perfectly comfortable with discussing it - but not when people are eager to look past the real cause of economic problems in Ireland, and instead focusing the entire blame on a language.

So basically youre happy to talk about the opportunity cost of unlimited and undirected Irish spending in a time of bitter cutbacks....but only if its prefaced by some standard denouncement of bankers and stuff.

Grand, bankers are ****. Theyre complete ****wads. Oh arent they only total bastards.

Can we talk about the opportunity cost of unlimited and undirected Irish spending in a time of bitter cutbacks now?

I will when you are willing to accept that this country is not economically crippled because of the Irish language.

Cart before horse. Its because the country is economically crippled that we can not afford to translate documents you and I will never read into Irish so that you can feel warm and fuzzy inside that silly amounts of money are being spent on bureacratically insane projects to appease ridiculous lobby groups.

Like I said, every euro you want to spend on such stupidity is a euro youre stealing from people who want to pay for cancer tests for kids. Think of the children.

Funny how Irish fanatics claim its part of our cultural heritage, but dont place any importance on the care for children in our cultural heritage. Sad to be honest, sad.

our health minister spending over €400 to wash her hair

But she got it washed by an Irish speaker....so it was supporting Irish ya see.

IM0

murphaph wrote:

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

seems some of us havent grasped english yet, what does that even mean

SeanW

he forgot the w in now

starbelgrade

Or the "t" in "not"?

cyclopath2001

dlofnep wrote: »

All funding requests must be passed.

The OLA imposed a blanket requirement on all government departments to make all documents and services available in Irish. It did not specify any limit on cost and there is no overall budget or limit on the amount that the OLA will cost. In fact, nobody knows how much it has cost us already.

dlofnep wrote: »

The fact that the only Irish spot in my city was closed due to lack of funds is categoric proof...

No it's not. And since when can Irish only flourish in fancy state-of-the-art state-funded facilities? Why not club together and hire a room? Or ask to use part of a library some evening? The local GAA might be sympathetic.

dlofnep wrote: »

but are most certainly a bilingual nation. And with a good portion of polish speakers now, we are pretty much a multilingual nation at this point.

And with more people speaking Chinese here than Irish.

dlofnep wrote: »

This all stems from the anti-Irish lobby who don't wish to implement cuts, but rather remove state support completely.

Straw-man argument.

dlofnep wrote: »

Not very democratic is it? That's fascism. I do not live in a fascist state, and if state support for Irish was removed - it would be against the wishes of the majority of this state. That is a fact.

Those of us beaten at school for not knowing the Tuiseal Gna-Laithraeach or who had their names forcibly translated into Irish know a bit of Gaelic fascism. But, this is more 'straw man' from you - nobody wants to abolish state support for Irish, just lower the cost of it. An Bord Snip recommended that abolition of O'Cuiv's department. It's a waste of money. If our government offers people a choice between more taxes and getting rid of a wasteful government department, what will the majority choose? Cutting budgets and limiting expenditure is not Fascism.

dlofnep wrote: »

Why should I accept less?

Everyone must accept less.

dlofnep wrote: »

Why should the majority of the people who support the language be dictated by a minority?

I think we need to know more about the nature and limits of this 'support' that you claim. People may have a warm feeling towards the language but might be keeping their wallets firmly closed at the same time.

dlofnep wrote: »

any suggestions for destroying state support for it is not democratic.

I can see that you're uncomfortable with negotiating the level of support, this is why you constantly address the imagined threat of people wanting to destroy your chosen language.

Is it too much to ask the Irish speakers to emerge from the intoxicating Celtic mists of whatever you're smoking and come into the real world of money and the lack of it?