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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

murphaph

daithicarr wrote: »

a 10 % pay cut to fund these translations ?? how do you come to a 10 % figure. Irish language support does not take up anything like 10 % of income tax revenue. these reports are but a small percentage of the total.

It doesn't matter what i personally will take, the point i am making and you are ignoring is that most people support funding for the Irish language. The levels of which and how its spent differ greatly from person to person.

Perhaps the how the government funding on Irish is effectively used could be examined , just as it could in all other things its spent on. But while Irish is one of the official languages of this state and the union we are in, the right for people to have documents etc in Irish remains.
And the people overwhelmingly support the maintenance of Irish as an official language and are unlikely to change their opinion just because 30,000 was spent on a report which no one read in Irish and precious few did in English either.

Ok, how much of your personal income are you prepared to forego? I see what you have written but I think people are happy to think that "somebody else" is funding the language and they don't realise that it is them!

You told me on another thread that you are living in tough circumstances on social welfare, but here you are defending this sort of spending on useless translations. I can't square this circle, I really can't Daithi.

murphaph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Spot the one single language in the EU where you know can be 100% that all it's speakers can also speak English fluently. lol. How did O'Cuiv ever manage to get Irish raised to be treated on a par with German, spoken by 105 million native speakers.

Bulgarian: 12 million
Czech: 12 million
Danish: 6 million
Dutch: 22 million
English: 350 million
Estonian: 1.25 million
Finnish: 6 million
French: 65 million
German: 105 million
Greek: 12 million
Hungarian: 15 million
Irish: 355,000 fluent or native <ahem, wishful census thinking, ahem>
Italian: 70 million
Latvian: 1.5 million
Lithuanian: 3.5 million
Maltese: 371,500
Polish: 40 million
Portuguese: 200 million
Romanian: 24 million
Slovak: 7 million
Slovene: 2.4 million
Spanish: 329 million
Swedish: 10 million

The only language in the official 23 which comes close is Maltese. Now I've visited Malta and I assure you that plenty of people there do not speak English and Maltese is a true national language. English is spoken but not fluently by the entire population like in Ireland. In short, Irish is the only language in that list which could be removed without affecting the ability of a single soul in the EU to access EU documentation in a fully understandable language. It's amazing the EU allowed it but they obviously took the 355,000 "native speakers" figure at face value. We all know this figure comes from the census and we all know people who speak a cupla focail and who put down 'fluent' on the census.

Funny that other regional languages with much more daily speakers (like Welsh) don't factor because their governments didn't go begging the EU to have them admitted. Imagine if every language in the EU with the same number or more speakers as Irish (proper speakers, who speak it daily) were translated. Any Idea how much that would cost the EU?

daithicarr

murphaph wrote: »

Ok, how much of your personal income are you prepared to forego? I see what you have written but I think people are happy to think that "somebody else" is funding the language and they don't realise that it is them!

You told me on another thread that you are living in tough circumstances on social welfare, but here you are defending this sort of spending on useless translations. I can't square this circle, I really can't Daithi.

They all now they fund the language, all of us do as citizens of this state, we pay tax and part of that tax funds the state spending on the Irish language, you must think the general tax payer is an idiot if you think they cant make the connection between their tax revenue and government spending.

If you really must know how much id like to contribute, substantially more than i was doing so when fully employed and once i get work again, i would like to see a greater proportion of my income and everyone Else's go to funding the services provided by the state, such as health and education and the support of the Irish language.

As part of funding all these things from hospitals to Irish, things are produced which are of questionable value, rather than dropping the funding of the whole thing how the available funding is effectively spent should be looked at.

It does not matter how much i want or don't want to spend, the major point you you repeatedly ignore is that people want Irish to maintain its current position or be enhanced, as a by product of that, people have a right to use these services, even if they avail of them or not. it has been suggested again and again that the people do not support the current level of spending or want it dropped entirely, no evidence has been shown to support this in the slightest

It seems highly unlikely that this comparatively small amount of spending on these documents is going to change the view of peoples wish to see Irish funded over all.

murphaph

daithicarr wrote: »

They all now they fund the language, all of us do as citizens of this state, we pay tax and part of that tax funds the state spending on the Irish language, you must think the general tax payer is an idiot if you think they cant make the connection between their tax revenue and government spending.

If you really must know how much id like to contribute, substantially more than i was doing so when fully employed and once i get work again, i would like to see a greater proportion of my income and everyone Else's go to funding the services provided by the state, such as health and education and the support of the Irish language.

As part of funding all these things from hospitals to Irish, things are produced which are of questionable value, rather than dropping the funding of the whole thing how the available funding is effectively spent should be looked at.

It does not matter how much i want or don't want to spend, the major point you you repeatedly ignore is that people want Irish to maintain its current position or be enhanced, as a by product of that, people have a right to use these services, even if they avail of them or not. it has been suggested again and again that the people do not support the current level of spending or want it dropped entirely, no evidence has been shown to support this in the slightest

It seems highly unlikely that this comparatively small amount of spending on these documents is going to change the view of peoples wish to see Irish funded over all.

So you wouldn't want any money cut from your dole to fund the language if the choice came to it? I'm not picking on you-I'm trying to highlight that we are facing cuts across the board (including in Social Welfare) and we are spending questionable amounts of money translating documents that nobody NEEDS to be in Irish! Every penny spent on these translations of unread documents is a penny that could be spent elsewhere.

daithicarr

No i wouldn't mind letting go of a bit more of my income to keep the services i think this state should provide, as long as everyone else in the state was making similar cuts, my points on the other thread were that cuts should not come first from those who could least afford it. but that discussion should be left for that thread
Id happily see us all pay more to support the services of the state. And I Will happily pay an even greater proportion once i have work again.

But my main point keeps being sidestepped and ignored, the Irish people SUPPORT the states provision of funds for the Irish language in general.

cyclopath2001

T runner wrote: »

Can the Minister expand the scope of the OLA or can he not?
The answer is no.

Yes he can. The act permits him to do this via statutory instruments.

T runner wrote: »

Has any of the SIs expanded the scope of the OLA?

Yes.

T runner wrote: »

Therefore the minister for the gaeltacht etc is corrupt, the minister for Finance is corrupt all to facilitate the evil "irish speaking industry".

We're talking about Fianna Fail here.

Now: who said the Irish speaking industry was Evil? You said it, I didn't.

T runner wrote: »

And all this pie in the sky to rationalise your untrue assertion that the minister is trying to implement more than the scope of what is actually allowed in the ACT.

The act itself allows for its own scope to be extended by SIs.

T runner wrote: »

I have invited you to come up with a way of reducing the costs withoiut amending the ACT.

Pass SIs that reduce the scope/applicability/implementation of the act. The Irish language lobby agrees to accept services and documents in English and withdraws its demands under the OLA.

T runner wrote: »

Im not demanding anything.

So you're not demanding full implementation of the act?

daithcarr wrote:

Yes if you look at the report you will find it is issued by the sociology department of NUI maynooth.

Link please.

daithicarr wrote:

But my main point keeps being sidestepped and ignored, the Irish people SUPPORT the states provision of funds for the Irish language in general.

It has not been side-stepped at all. The surveys have been found to be highly questionable and the Irish lobby has misrepresented them as independent and scientific. The Irish lobby itself is evasive about the cost of servicing its demands, no doubt as if the full cost were known, the 'SUPPORT' that they claim would fall away very quickly.

What needs to be evaluated is what is this 'SUPPORT'? Is it a warm fuzzy feeling or is it backed up by open wallets?

murphaph

daithicarr wrote: »

But my main point keeps being sidestepped and ignored, the Irish people SUPPORT the states provision of funds for the Irish language in general.

Daithi, with all due respect, I don't think most Irish people know a) how much is spent on supporting the language and b) what 'supporting' the language actually entails (eg translating useless documents at exorbitant cost).

daithicarr

on what basis do you theorise this murphman, you haven't provided the singelest it of evidence which would even suggest this or from which one could reasonably conclude that they would find language support wasteful if they knew the true extent of the expenditure, not on single bit of evidence, your points are mere conjecture.

What is the true cost that you keep referring too, how much is spent on Irish ? how do you know that they would not like more spent ?

cyclopath2001

daithicarr wrote: »

What is the true cost that you keep referring too, how much is spent on Irish ? how do you know that they would not like more spent ?

We'd all like to know that, lucky for the Irish language industry, the OLA does not provide any means to control the costs.

Do you agree that there should be cost controls?

BTW, still waiting for that link to the 'NUI' survey.

daithicarr

there should be cost controls in everything we do, but its being suggested that some questionable spending is a reason to shut it all down.

as for the source, it says nui maynooth on it, do you think they fabricated that, from some hidden pro Irish agenda and managed to trick the times and the government ?

or perhaps its a big conspiracy amongst the secret fascist irish lobby to force the language down our throats with the assistance of the government ?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0422/breaking8.htm

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

daithicarr

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

most people do, provide evidence of otherwise, as i have provided some which supports they do

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cyclopath2001

daithicarr wrote: »

there should be cost controls in everything we do, but its being suggested that some questionable spending is a reason to shut it all down.

By who?

daithicarr wrote: »

as for the source, it says nui maynooth on it, do you think they fabricated that, from some hidden pro Irish agenda and managed to trick the times and the government ?

I thought that might be the one. It was funded by the government departments whose existence is reinforced by the findings, and authored by an Irish language fanatic, with a forward by the head of Conradh Na Gaeilge.

It does not appear to have been published by the NUI whose resources may have been employed, but whose imprint/logo is strangely absent from the document. Oddly, the author personally retains copyright over the work.

daithicarr wrote: »

or perhaps its a big conspiracy amongst the secret fascist irish lobby to force the language down our throats with the assistance of the government ?

No, not 'force the language down our throats', but simply to justify squandering money on vanity projects favouring the Irish language industry. 'Fascist lobby?' That's a new one...again you said it, not me. There's no need to bring the Nazis into this.

Those findings were roundly trashed in another thread some time ago.

Do you have links to other surveys?

daithicarr

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its still spoken as a community and family language by many people and a second language by many more,unlike Latin an ancient greek so its by no means dead, not by a long shot.

as for the report, 40 % are for its revival, 50 % the middle ground want it maintained as a language and I'm sure there is a big scope of opinion in that 50 % of what is needed to retain it, only 6% want it abandoned

cyclopath why should i provide more information which indicates people support the language, when none is being provided to counter it.
if you think its part of some conspiracy then perhaps we should move it to that forum

cyclopath2001

daithicarr wrote: »

cyclopath why should i provide more information which indicates people support the language, when none is being provided to counter it.

Why should money be spent in the absence of a credible business case?

And, we're still waiting to know how much the existing plan costs now and in the future.

daithicarr

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Why should money be spent in the absence of a credible business case?

does that go for everything that money is spent on that doesn't bring profit ? special needs education, music education etc. If so I take a fundamentally different view from yourself

cyclopath2001

daithicarr wrote: »

does that go for everything that money is spent on that doesn't bring profit ? special needs education, music education etc. If so I take a fundamentally different view from yourself

I think the needs of the disabled or those with intellectual disadvantages are more important than the preferenences of Irish language enthusiasts.

But, you've still not said if you agree to and audit and cost-control measures ove the application of the OLA, which is the whole point of this thread. Why is that?

thebman

daithicarr wrote: »

Its still spoken as a community and family language by many people and a second language by many more,unlike Latin an ancient greek so its by no means dead, not by a long shot.

as for the report, 40 % are for its revival, 50 % the middle ground want it maintained as a language and I'm sure there is a big scope of opinion in that 50 % of what is needed to retain it, only 6% want it abandoned

cyclopath why should i provide more information which indicates people support the language, when none is being provided to counter it.
if you think its part of some conspiracy then perhaps we should move it to that forum

This is annoying TBH. On one hand people here are saying if we cut funding, we are killing the language and on the other hand it is a living language spoken by many as their first or second language.

If that is the case cutting funding won't kill it so whats the problem?

daithicarr

well it probably wouldnt die from lack of irish planning documents in county clare

Cjoe

It is a waste to spend that amount, especially in a county that has no gaeltacht. Also i dont see why they have to produce so many copies. Its clear we have a minority who speak irish so to produce so many copies is just being naive as to the reality of the situation.

We must also remember this was during the "Good Times" when councils had alot of money to waste. So I hope people wont jump on an "Irish language is dead" debate. Its not native speakers fault.

I do agree with creating documents in irish and english. But we must look at the quantity produced and for what areas of the country they are produced for.

jimmmy

Far too much money and effort is wasted on Irish language. Over many decades and travels throughout every county in Ireland, I have never heard Irish spokem, apart from the very odd word here and there eg in a debate someone may use one or two Irish words eg cupla focail. I have been in newsagents many thousands of times in my life + never saw anyone buy an Irish language magazine or newspaper. Yet the govt wastes hundreds of millions of euro on it.....borrowed money which must be repaid by our children + grandchildren.

The Corinthian

thebman wrote: »

it is a living language spoken by many as their first or second language.

Is it? I don't mean to be glib and certainly I know there are those who can speak it fluently (or fluently with every fifth word being in English), but what exactly are the real numbers?

I say real numbers because there seems to be an aversion to actually measuring the use of Irish in any meaningful way (perhaps for fear of what would be discovered) and the figures quoted are often from the census (where a person can assess themselves and there is no objective testing) or through government departments that have a vested interest in keeping the numbers up. Has there been an independent and objective study done in recent years?

thebman

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is it? I don't mean to be glib and certainly I know there are those who can speak it fluently (or fluently with every fifth word being in English), but what exactly are the real numbers?

I say real numbers because there seems to be an aversion to actually measuring the use of Irish in any meaningful way (perhaps for fear of what would be discovered) and the figures quoted are often from the census (where a person can assess themselves and there is no objective testing) or through government departments that have a vested interest in keeping the numbers up. Has there been an independent and objective study done in recent years?

Well since those are the only figures available then we don't really have much choice :-/

I'm sure plenty of people say they can speak it in the census although many are probably mistaken. Either that or its just me and everyone I know that doesn't know it. I know one person that speaks it fluently and he only uses it to speak to someone else who knows it fluently for the hell of it.

I think a the very least, they should stop printing copies of these books and just make them ebooks. No point printing something that will most likely not be read. That way it cuts down on costs a bit at least and people can print off a copy themselves if they really want a paper copy.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is it? I don't mean to be glib and certainly I know there are those who can speak it fluently (or fluently with every fifth word being in English), but what exactly are the real numbers?

My wife and I are raising our children through Irish and she speaks it as a first language more fluently than most people speak English to be blunt. My Irish is abysmal in comparison but then, I've never claimed anything but basic Irish on any form.

The biggest issue with the numbers is that on the CSO forms they ask how often do you speak Irish and nothing about your level of fluency. I speak Irish daily, in simple sentences, should I tick the "speak it daily" box? Etc.

jimmmy

nesf wrote: »

The biggest issue with the numbers is that on the CSO forms they ask how often do you speak Irish and nothing about your level of fluency.

If people are asked a question to do with their educational ability, they like to respond positively. Especially if like most Irish people they studied it / endured it for 12 + years at school. And are poor at communicating in European languages ( like most Irish are ). Can you add numbers ( eg 5 + 4 ? ). Yes. Can you speak Irish ? Yes .
In my humble opinion, far too much money and effort is wasted on the Irish language. Let those who want it everyday pay for it everyday.

The Corinthian

thebman wrote: »

I'm sure plenty of people say they can speak it in the census although many are probably mistaken.

Probably so - in fact I suspect that most people's actual grasp of the language is best exemplified by the following advert that doubles as unintentional satire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNBmFveq2U

I think a the very least, they should stop printing copies of these books and just make them ebooks. No point printing something that will most likely not be read. That way it cuts down on costs a bit at least and people can print off a copy themselves if they really want a paper copy.

In most cases printing is actually only a fraction of the cost, with most going towards translation.

This probably muddies the waters of the debate further because, beyond the question of national identity, there is an economic angle to support for the Irish language. Thousands of jobs (translators, teachers, TV presenters, inspectors, etc) are dependant upon the official status of the language, not to mention the economic incentives that profit those who officially live in the Gaeltacht. A lot of all this really just comes down to money, from what I can see.

thebman

The Corinthian wrote: »

Probably so - in fact I suspect that most people's actual grasp of the language is best exemplified by the following advert that doubles as unintentional satire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNBmFveq2U

lol yeah I love that ad

Makes me feel normal for not speaking Irish :P Still won't drink Carlsberg if there is another option :P

In most cases printing is actually only a fraction of the cost, with most going towards translation.

This probably muddies the waters of the debate further because, beyond the question of national identity, there is an economic angle to support for the Irish language. Thousands of jobs (translators, teachers, TV presenters, inspectors, etc) are dependant upon the official status of the language, not to mention the economic incentives that profit those who officially live in the Gaeltacht. A lot of all this really just comes down to money, from what I can see.

Oh I know where most money goes but it would reduce it at least a little. Printing isn't cheap even though it isn't the major cost.

I agree a lot of this probably comes down to invested interest pushing under the guise of saving the language.

Not suggesting anyone in this thread is doing that though. Obvious some people do just love the language.

Cjoe

jimmmy wrote: »

Far too much money and effort is wasted on Irish language. Over many decades and travels throughout every county in Ireland, I have never heard Irish spokem, apart from the very odd word here and there eg in a debate someone may use one or two Irish words eg cupla focail. I have been in newsagents many thousands of times in my life + never saw anyone buy an Irish language magazine or newspaper. Yet the govt wastes hundreds of millions of euro on it.....borrowed money which must be repaid by our children + grandchildren.

Where exactly in ireland do you go? I hear it constantly if i go to a pub in carroe in galway and ring in waterford. Dingle aswell although its diluted there with tourism. But its out there.
For the government to spend so much on things like copies of council reprts etc is questionable. But suggesting Irish is not being read and spoken because you have never seen people speak it or buy a newspaper is naive. Sure its a minority speaking it but its very much alive.