Cén fáth a raibh Gaeilge bhaintear as an ardán Dunlaoghaire? [Read edit in 1st post]

Cookie_Monster

That username is already in use. wrote: »

The signs with incorrect Irish spellings are not "perfectly legible". These signs must be replaced as per the regulations, and I will see to it.

are you going to pay for it too or is it just going to be more wasted tax money?

mackerski

markpb wrote: »

A missing fada is not going to stop someone knowing where they are. I might not agree with these regulations but even if I did, you're being excessively pedantic.

To be fair, he's not being all that pedantic. I stopped looking for errors after the first one, but it was a missing "i". If (big if) you're going to erect Irish signs, you should do it right the first time. And if it's too expensive to find somebody who knows how to spell in Irish then you may have your first clue of how valuable the sigs are in the first place.

That username is already in use.

markpb wrote: »

A missing fada is not going to stop someone knowing where they are. I might not agree with these regulations but even if I did, you're being excessively pedantic.

I agree with you about the missing fada, of course, and I would not see it as a reason to have any signage replaced.

However, it is just one example of the thousands of spelling errors and terrible Irish grammar seen on all signage, not only with IÉ, but all around the country.

I just find it inexcusable that new signage, be it by IÉ or others, is still not spell checked or confirmed by a fluent Irish speaker.

Glaring spelling errors and atrocious grammar are an issue for me and other Irish speakers.

I fully respect your opinions about the regulations, but you should also respect ours, and what we are asking for is hardly unreasonable.

New signage with spelling errors in Irish should be replaced. And by "replaced" I mean, patching the sign with the correct spelling. By doing this after the fact, government bodies with know to be careful before lashing up signs without checking the Irish.

In relation to the DCC wayfinding signage (and other DCC signage), I do believe they should be replaced as I now know that "somebody" in DCC was knowingly contravening the regulations, thinking nothing would be done about it. I will be doing something about it.

Judgement Day

Nice picture of the sign at Ballycullane - it's only a few years ago that there was no sign of any description at that station in any language.

Jehuty42

That username is already in use. wrote: »

I just find it inexcusable that new signage, be it by IÉ or others, is still not spell checked or confirmed by a fluent Irish speaker.

As has been pointed out, the fact that fluent Irish speakers cannot be easily found speaks volumes about how many people will be reading the Irish translations on signs anyway.
I don't know how you can defend it when there is no one who speaks Irish who is not also fluent in English- signs to the public should try and be legible to the most common denominator, which is English-speakers. Lacking the Irish translation or having that translation in error has no effect on anyone's understanding of the sign- they are perfectly capable of reading the English.

But people like you insist on reading the Irish when you have no good reason to.

That username is already in use.

Jehuty42 wrote: »

But people like you insist on reading the Irish when you have no good reason to.

Hi Jehuty,

I recommend that you contact your local TD and request the removal of these particular regulations from the Official Languaes Act.

Until then, "people like me" will continue to exercise the rights afforded to them by the OLA.

Jehuty42

That username is already in use. wrote: »

Hi Jehuty,

I recommend that you contact your local TD and request the removal of these particular regulations from the Official Languaes Act.

Until then, "people like me" will continue to exercise the rights afforded to them by the OLA.

I have done similar, to all my local TDs, stating that I would like to remove the constitutional recognition of Irish- in my eyes it is a historical language useful for scholarly research, but for better or for worse, it died out and has no modern relevance. But I am too jaded to expect anything to come of it, such is the state of democracy in this country.

Anyway, I know that I can't change your mind and you can't change mine, so we shall leave it there.

That username is already in use.

Jehuty42 wrote: »

I have done similar, to all my local TDs, stating that I would like to remove the constitutional recognition of Irish- in my eyes it is a historical language useful for scholarly research, but for better or for worse, it died out and has no modern relevance. But I am too jaded to expect anything to come of it, such is the state of democracy in this country..

This is a discussion about public transport signage and OLA regulations.

If you wish to voice your personal opinions about the Irish Language, please post it to the Irish language or Politics forum.

Thank you

Jehuty42

Jehuty42 wrote: »

As has been pointed out, the fact that fluent Irish speakers cannot be easily found speaks volumes about how many people will be reading the Irish translations on signs anyway.

I suppose one of the problems is the fact that placenames have been "lost & rediscovered" can sometimes have more than one spelling on them, there is a townland near here that had the spelling changed when they renewed the road signs recently.

mackerski

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose one of the problems is the fact that placenames have been "lost & rediscovered" can sometimes have more than one spelling on them, there is a townland near here that had the spelling changed when they renewed the road signs recently.

They appear to have added 1km to the road too.

Stonewolf

mackerski wrote: »

They appear to have added 1km to the road too.

and downgraded it from a national route

Breezer

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose one of the problems is the fact that placenames have been "lost & rediscovered" can sometimes have more than one spelling on them, there is a townland near here that had the spelling changed when they renewed the road signs recently.

Yep, this is pretty common. Close to me you have "Sandycove" translated correctly on one sign as "Cuas an Ghainimh," and within a 1km radius you also have "Cuas na Gainimhe," "Cuis an Ghainimh," "Sinn Le Gó" and "Sáinn Le Gó." Mind you, in Enniscrone they also manage to give various versions in English, including "Eniscrone" and "Iniscrone." Not to mention Dún Laoghaire and its various incarnations of "Dun Laoghaire" (I'm guilty of this one myself when writing in English), "Dun Laoire" and "Dunleary."

Is it really that hard? Seriously, how hard can it be?

mackerski

Breezer wrote: »

Close to me you have "Sandycove" translated correctly on one sign as "Cuas an Ghainimh,"

Define correct - which came first, Sandycove or Cuas an Ghainimh?

That username is already in use.

mackerski wrote: »

which came first, Sandycove or Cuas an Ghainimh?

http://www.logainm.ie/Image.aspx?PlaceID=1165967&Url=1165967_1.jpg

Study the cards. The Irish came first.

By the by, Dalkey comes from "Deilgøy"

Deilg = Irish for thorn(y)
øy = Old Norse for island

Deilgøy = Dalkey = Thorny Island.

mackerski

That username is already in use. wrote: »

http://www.logainm.ie/Image.aspx?PlaceID=1165967&Url=1165967_1.jpg

Study the cards. The Irish came first.

Interesting cards, though I failed to find any date attributed to what is considered to be the correct form. Other than one in the 1960s. That said, some of that handwriting is even worse than mine. What date did I miss?

The reason I strongly suspected an English original name was partly down to where it is, but mostly because it seems to be a "proper" English description of the place rather than a corruption of an Irish form. None of which rules out a completely different Irish name, of course, predating the current English one.

foggy_lad

Will an nás be reverted back to nás na ríogh? Several other irish placenames have been butchered like this with anglocised versions will they be changed back?

dubhthach

Breezer wrote: »

Not to mention Dún Laoghaire and its various incarnations of "Dun Laoghaire" (I'm guilty of this one myself when writing in English), "Dun Laoire" and "Dunleary."

Is it really that hard? Seriously, how hard can it be?

Dún Laoire is technically correct after the spelling reform that came in with the new standard in the 50's. However the spelling of the town with the pre-standard version was enshrined in legislation, i would change it personally as it better reflection of the prn of the name. Related example the spelling of the surname Leary changed from:
Ó Laoghaire --> Ó Laoire

Run_to_da_hills

I noted new tiles on the main platform at Connelly this morning. will this be bilingual?

That username is already in use.

"Both colours are considered to be of equal prominence." - Dublin City Council

For anyone who is interested, an investigation by An Coimisinéir Teanga found that those involved with the wayfinding scheme in the Planning & Economic Development Department in the Dublin City Council were breaching the regulations by using colour to give English more prominence over Irish.

As all 683 signs have already been delivered, none will be replaced, but the DCC were strongly warned not to contravene the regulations again by using materials or colours to give English more prominence over Irish for future signage.

Ironically, had the DCC just followed the regulations in the first place and used the same colour for both languages, the consultancy and manufacturing costs would have been less.

I have the invoice to JCDecaux for manufacturing costs if anyone's interested:

683 re-vinyl finger panels
Strip old vinyl - heat existing vinyl and carefully remove by hand to prevent damage to paint.
Cut new vinyl text graphics (2 colours) and hand apply to both faces panel.
Wrap individual panels and pack in crate.
€38,248 (€56 ea.)

Collection/Delivery: €1,650

Grand total: €39,898

I don't have the invoices for the design and consultancy costs, but I imagine they would be in the region of €10,000.

And that is that.

Let that be a lesson to any government bodies that try to deliberately contravene the regulations.

markpb

That username is already in use. wrote: »

As all 683 signs have already been delivered, none will be replaced, but the DCC were strongly warned not to contravene the regulations again by using materials or colours to give English more prominence over Irish for future signage.

Let that be a lesson to any government bodies that try to deliberately contravene the regulations.

Eh, yeah, that was a terrible punishment - a finger wagging

mackerski

That username is already in use. wrote: »

Let that be a lesson to any government bodies that try to deliberately contravene the regulations.

So a single colour would have made a more readable sign, would it? It's good that the IMF is in town, I'm sure they'll want to tackle the unfair dominance of the English langauge early on...

Cookie_Monster

well thankfully they at least have the sense not to throw them all away cos one person has an issue with them.

That username is already in use.

markpb wrote: »

Eh, yeah, that was a terrible punishment - a finger wagging

I am actually very happy with that.

It means I now have a stronger clout when querying DCC on other issues, not just in relation to language policy. They won't fob me off with blatent lies the next time as they know I will take things further. Goal achieved.

I have learned a lot about the inner workings of the DCC over the past month and I intend to poke about a lot more.

I am nosey and insistant - the government hate that.

Jehuty42

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

well thankfully they at least have the sense not to throw them all away cos one person has an issue with them.

Question to TUiAiU - did your exposure to the inner workings of DCC reveal any other complaints made independently to yours about this issue?

Cookie_Monster

Jehuty42 wrote: »

Question to TUiAiU - did you exposure to the inner workings of DCC reveal any other complaints made independently to yours about this issue?

I hope not, that'd be a breach of Data Protection

Hotblack Desiato

That username is already in use. wrote: »

"Both colours are considered to be of equal prominence." - Dublin City Council

Yes. And...?

Let that be a lesson to any government bodies that try to deliberately contravene the regulations.

This sort of awkward-squad sh!t turns more people against the Irish language than anything else.

Hotblack Desiato

That username is already in use. wrote: »

I am nosey and insistant - the government hate that.

In an era of brutal health and education cuts, I really cannot believe you are complaining about this stuff.

mackerski

Interestingly, on the example shown, not one single item featuring in the sign was originally referred to by an Irish name. All Irish versions are later translations produced for the convenience amusement of people who, although they would understand the original names, choose to demand translations.

Cookie_Monster

They also put Dublinia in English twice :P

Victor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

They also put Dublinia in English twice :P

Surely that madey-uppy Latin?

CIE

Victor wrote: »

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

They also put Dublinia in English twice

Surely that madey-uppy Latin?

IINM, the accepted term is Dog Latin...

That username is already in use.

ninja900 wrote: »

This sort of awkward-squad sh!t turns more people against the Irish language than anything else.

Anything that promotes the Irish language is seen as a waste of money and resources by yourself and your thanksers.

I make use of the language rights afforded to me by this State.

As long as these rights are in place, you are just going to have to put up with people like me.

I have done nothing wrong in this thread, though one would swear otherwise by the responses.

I am interested in signage design and the Irish language, and I have voiced my opinions to the various departments involved with the wayfinding scheme.

My voice has been heard and I now have direct contact with the people that are responsible for signage in Dublin.

I can understand the anti-Irish sentiment here, but I just hate the way some of you try and use it to mute an opinion or shutdown entire thread.

For those interested in Bilingual signage in Ireland, please visit my thread in the Roads forum
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056102302

markpb

That username is already in use. wrote: »

Anything that promotes the Irish language is seen as a waste of money and resources by yourself and your thanksers.

I can't speak for the others but I don't have a problem with new signs being compliant with OLA. I do have a problem with legislation which forces all public and local authorities to replace all their signs because they're no longer compliant (from 2013). In DCC's case they should have done it properly first time round but your complaint could have resulted in tens of thousands of euros worth of waste.

However, I do think that OLA is a waste of time. It won't preserve Irish culture, it won't encourage anyone to speak Irish and, in the case of announcements on public transport, it just makes them irritating and overloaded to the point of uselessness. If you love Irish, do you genuinely think OLA is the way to promote it?

L1011

That username is already in use. wrote: »

I make use of the language rights afforded to me by this State.

There is making use of rights; and agitating solely for the sake of agitating

Those signs are just as readable in Irish as they are in English. They would have been significantly less readable with both the same colour and they would have been significantly less useful to their intended audience - tourists who can't speak a word of Irish - with Irish made more prominent.

Should they have had to be replaced at cost to the taxpayer I would have considered you responsible for just as pointless a waste of money as the lads in FAS and Mary Harney's haircut.

The Official Languages Act should be suspended for the forseeable due to utterly unneeded costs it puts on to state agencies.

-Chris-

markpb wrote: »

I can't speak for the others but I don't have a problem with new signs being compliant with OLA. I do have a problem with legislation which forces all public and local authorities to replace all their signs because they're no longer compliant (from 2013). In DCC's case they should have done it properly first time round but your complaint could have resulted in tens of thousands of euros worth of waste.

I agree with this bit a lot.

If a sign is designed incorrectly and is therefore difficult to use, replace it.
If a sign is designed incorrectly but is still easy to use and comprehend, don't replace it just because it uses the wrong shade of grey.

If a sign is designed incorrectly, someone needs a really good slap for being incompetent, but we've bigger things to worry about than minor differences in fonts.

One other thing that I'd think is that I really don't believe graphic designers or usability experts were involved in creating these guidelines.
If you take the most recent example on this thread, changing all the colours so they're all of equal prominence would make this sign harder to comprehend, especially if passing it in a car at 50KMPH while being unfamiliar with the city.

That username is already in use.

markpb wrote: »

Your complaint could have resulted in tens of thousands of euros worth of waste.

I requested that future signage follow the regulations properly.

How is that "tens of thousands of euros worth of waste"?

No signs were replaced.

I may be wrong, but I think you want there to be costs so you can harp on about it.

Victor

CIE wrote: »

IINM, the accepted term is Dog Latin...

Should I say "Mea Culpa" or "point proven"?

markpb

That username is already in use. wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I think you want there to be costs so you can harp on about it.

Actually *you* resurrected this thread to gloat about your victory over DCC so who's harping?

And you completely avoided my question. If you love Irish, do you genuinely think OLA is a good way to promote it?

foggy_lad

I love Ireland and think those who are supposed to be doing a job should do it properly or give it to someone else. How can any Irish county council order signs from a company without first checking if the signs are correct and comply with all Irish regulations?

markpb wrote: »

Actually *you* resurrected this thread to gloat about your victory over DCC so who's harping?

And you completely avoided my question. If you love Irish, do you genuinely think OLA is a good way to promote it?

bg07

That username is already in use. wrote: »

I requested that future signage follow the regulations properly.

How is that "tens of thousands of euros worth of waste"?

No signs were replaced.

I may be wrong, but I think you want there to be costs so you can harp on about it.

According to this article in the Sunday Tribune last month there is significant cost as the sign are being relettered.

Link to Tribune

Tourist signage unused because 'Irish not prominent'
Ken Foxe, Public Affairs Correspondent
One of the signs near City Hall

A PLAN to erect new signage for tourists and visitors has been delayed because of an argument about the prominence of the Irish language.

Dublin City Council had begun the process of rolling out the new wayfinder sign system in the capital in late summer.

However, a formal complaint was made to the Irish Language Commissioner, which meant further progress on the scheme had to be halted.

The original complaint alleged that the signs were deliberately making the English language version more obvious, in direct contravention of legislation.

Even though the signs are primarily meant for visitors, they must still carry an Irish version of each word and it must be given at least equal prominence.

The signs have remained in storage since the adjudication was made and cannot be installed until sufficient time is allowed for an appeal. In the meantime, dozens of distinctive tall empty poles have been erected in the city centre with nothing attached to them.

Dublin City Council has since been given a strong rebuke by the Irish Language Commissioner for making the English more prominent.

However, rather than force the destruction of the signs, the commissioner agreed that those already manufactured could be kept if the council agreed to observe the rules in future.

It is understood that the 683 existing signs will now be stripped down with the lettering altered to make the Irish language more prominent.

The complaint has caused consternation among some within the council who believe that signage designed primarily for tourists should be exempt from the rules. One city council source said: "It seems bizarre that signage developed chiefly for overseas visitors must give at least equal prominence to a language none of them will understand."

Others said the rules may seem "ridiculous" but it was important that all state bodies fulfil their duties under legislation.

Seán Ó Cuirreáin, the Irish language commissioner, said his office had done its best to ensure there was no undue delay for the city council. "The council has confirmed in writing its acceptance of the findings and recommendations and has, in fact, thanked this office for the speed with which the investigation was conducted."

January 16, 2011

I think that original signs were fine and don’t agree with the ruling that the Irish translation was less prominent. Personally I think this was all the result of a completely pointless quango trying to justify its existence.

dowlingm

bg07 wrote: »

I think that original signs were fine and don’t agree with the ruling that the Irish translation was less prominent. Personally I think this was all the result of a completely pointless quango trying to justify its existence.

Jesus lads you're lucky you don't live in Quebec.

Gripen

-Chris- wrote: »

Sponge Bob banned for 3 days for ignoring on-thread request/warning.

What is the story with making a Gadaffi-esque decision like that? The poster is entitled on an irish board to use either of the official languages enshrined in the constituition. Boards.ie cannot decide to override certain aspects of the constituition willynilly.

-Chris-

Gripen wrote: »

What is the story with making a Gadaffi-esque decision like that? The poster is entitled on an irish board to use either of the official languages enshrined in the constituition. Boards.ie cannot decide to override certain aspects of the constituition willynilly.

a) The stance of boards.ie is that if you're posting in a language other than English that you also post a translation (in English). The exceptions are in the language-specific forums

b) boards.ie is a privately owned website and are allowed to make these conditions for posting without affecting your constitutional rights

c) The 3 day ban wasn't for speaking Irish, it was for ignoring a moderator request

d) I don't appreciate being compared to Gadaffi for implementing the rules of boards.ie

e) If you have any further comment regarding this matter, please take it to the Feedback forum. It is off-topic in the context of this thread and continuing in this line of posting will result in a 3-day ban

bg07

A reworked tourist sign sign is up on Westmoreland street now. It now has the same font for both languages with colour scheme for letter reversed. Shocking waste of money in my opinion. I just hope gaeilge police are happy and it doesn't have to go back to the sign makers again.