The Irish language is failing.

di11on

Think about it... they managed to teach it to you for 13 years and then you come away not being able to speak it. It would be one thing to be taught the language reluctantly without seeing the use for it, but to have all that time wasted and then not even to be able to speak it in the end!

How in God's name did they manage that?

Dan_Solo

Deranged96 wrote: »

You supply no figures about the cost of maintaining Irish yourself.

Unless you are claiming that it costs nothing at all, the point still stands 100%. It is a waste of money.

Deranged96

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Unless you are claiming that it costs nothing at all, the point still stands 100%. It is a waste of money.

No, I'm just saying he complained that people who said Irish doesn't cost that much (me) supplied no figures (which I didn't). I stand to be corrected on this point and would love to see how the money is being spent and how it could be cut, and the remainder used effectively.

You're a great man for drawing conclusion from posts, Dan!

The Corinthian

boardise wrote: »

The Gaelic lobby is as usual shifty and duplicitous when asked about this. In one breath they say it's not very much at all -then in the next breath they say ,well, even if the cost is considerable the revival is worth persisting with no matter what the cost....but then the fact that they are the chief beneficiaries might explain that particular stance.

This. I've actually come to the conclusion that it is in the interests of a small section of society to have the language permanently on life support, with some vague promise that it's showing signs of turning the corner, which it never does.

After all, who gives grants out to speak languages that are spoken widely? Or if everyone could speak it, wouldn't competition for those jobs that require it increase?

It's a cash cow dressed in a tricolor, milked by a bunch of Gaelgore Bull McCabes.

di11on

The Corinthian wrote: »

This. I've actually come to the conclusion that it is in the interests of a small section of society to have the language permanently on life support, with some vague promise that it's showing signs of turning the corner, which it never does.

After all, who gives grants out to speak languages that are spoken widely? Or if everyone could speak it, wouldn't competition for those jobs that require it increase?

It's a cash cow dressed in a tricolor, milked by a bunch of Gaelgore Bull McCabes.

Language is an important part of a culture. Look at the French... the Alliance Francaise carries out the mission to promote French. They actively keep it alive and prevent foreign words creeping in etc.

However, languages need to be spoken. We decided we'd try and hang on to Irish because it would be nice to have, but not to speak it. After nearly 100 years of torment we can safely conclude this approach hasn't served any useful purpose, that it's now costing Irish society (money and psychological trauma) an awful lot more than it's worth and it's now time to cut the cord.

boardise

To Deranged96...

Why do I call it Gaelic ?

Because I believe that is an accurate ,historically justifiable appellation.
*Without going back any farther I note that Connradh na Gaeilge accepted the English translation of its name to be the Gaelic League.
I also note such titles as the Gaelic Athletic Association ,the Gaelic Journal etc. which showed clearly they were referring to specific activities and pursuits that were limited to a subset of the whole Irish population and were not coterminous with that population.....
not to mention the stirring rhetoric of the great guru himself Patrick Pearse ...'not merely free but Gaelic as well; not merely Gaelic but free as well'.

*I remember decades back when badges/medals were given out to people ,especially children, which proclaimed the mantra
'Gael mise, nach uasal sin ?'. I'm not sure who distributed these it could have been Connradh na Gaeilge or Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Eireann.
Leaving aside any possible intimations of supremacism here - it is being claimed that a group exists within Irish society who want to be identified as Gaels .It doesn't seem extraordinary that the language they wish to be associated with would be called Gaelic.

* Gaelic is a very plausible phonological equivalent of Gaeilge. In fact in Donegal when they refer to the language in Gaelic it actually sounds identical to my preferred designation in English. (The Munster term 'Gaoluinn' is a right old corruption. Some speakers in Connemara would callit GAEGLE ! As did my landlady in Galway Bean Uí Choncheannáin)

* The term Scots Gaidhlig/Gaelic shows that the language that was introduced from Ireland into SW Scotland was seen to be Gaelic and what emerged in Scotland was the Scots version of that Gaelic. Simple.

* The term then has a long history in popular and official usage and serves to distinguish a language that is associated with a subset of the broader Irish population.

Now let me ask you a question. Why do you think the use of the term Gaelic is in any way problematic or should cause any degree of puzzlement?

boardise

To Deranged 96.
''You didn't supply any cost figures yourself''.
You must be joking surely . How in God's name could I possibly compute almost a century of costs without access to all kinds of government documents scattered all over the place ? Not to mention costs incurred by county councils and other bodies . The Dark Side makes the point above.
My point is a general one -that the cost of the revival project must be huge when one thinks about all the inputs made in so many areas over many decades. I've tried to outline some of the obvious ones that are visible to the public eye. Do you dispute the validity of any one of them? Have I included anything that does not belong ?
Trying to estimate the total cost is a task for a persistent researcher with more time and energy than I possess....and in fact it will probably never be known
But as some people of more naive disposition would have it -Gaelic Revival can be done easily and cheaply !

Deranged96

boardise wrote: »

To Deranged96...

Why do I call it Gaelic ?

Because I believe that is an accurate ,historically justifiable appellation.
*Without going back any farther I note that Connradh na Gaeilge accepted the English translation of its name to be the Gaelic League.
I also note such titles as the Gaelic Athletic Association ,the Gaelic Journal etc. which showed clearly they were referring to specific activities and pursuits that were limited to a subset of the whole Irish population and were not coterminous with that population.....
not to mention the stirring rhetoric of the great guru himself Patrick Pearse ...'not merely free but Gaelic as well; not merely Gaelic but free as well'.

*I remember decades back when badges/medals were given out to people ,especially children, which proclaimed the mantra
'Gael mise, nach uasal sin ?'. I'm not sure who distributed these it could have been Connradh na Gaeilge or Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Eireann.
Leaving aside any possible intimations of supremacism here - it is being claimed that a group exists within Irish society who want to be identified as Gaels .It doesn't seem extraordinary that the language they wish to be associated with would be called Gaelic.

* Gaelic is a very plausible phonological equivalent of Gaeilge. In fact in Donegal when they refer to the language in Gaelic it actually sounds identical to my preferred designation in English. (The Munster term 'Gaoluinn' is a right old corruption. Some speakers in Connemara would callit GAEGLE ! As did my landlady in Galway Bean Uí Choncheannáin)

* The term Scots Gaidhlig/Gaelic shows that the language that was introduced from Ireland into SW Scotland was seen to be Gaelic and what emerged in Scotland was the Scots version of that Gaelic. Simple.

* The term then has a long history in popular and official usage and serves to distinguish a language that is associated with a subset of the broader Irish population.

Now let me ask you a question. Why do you think the use of the term Gaelic is in any way problematic or should cause any degree of puzzlement?

Calling Irish "Gaelic" is no different to calling English "Germanic". There's no point you investing energy in giving a big speel, it's not correct to refer to the Irish language as Gaelic because you could just as well be talking about Manx. If you called it Irish Gaelic like they do in America, no problem.

Dan_Solo

Deranged96 wrote: »

If you called it Irish Gaelic like they do in America, no problem.

You seem very confused here. Do you think there's any need to specify which Gaelic language we are discussing in this thread?

Iwasfrozen

boardise wrote: »

To Deranged96...

Why do I call it Gaelic ?

Because I believe that is an accurate ,historically justifiable appellation.
*Without going back any farther I note that Connradh na Gaeilge accepted the English translation of its name to be the Gaelic League.
I also note such titles as the Gaelic Athletic Association ,the Gaelic Journal etc. which showed clearly they were referring to specific activities and pursuits that were limited to a subset of the whole Irish population and were not coterminous with that population.....
not to mention the stirring rhetoric of the great guru himself Patrick Pearse ...'not merely free but Gaelic as well; not merely Gaelic but free as well'.

*I remember decades back when badges/medals were given out to people ,especially children, which proclaimed the mantra
'Gael mise, nach uasal sin ?'. I'm not sure who distributed these it could have been Connradh na Gaeilge or Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Eireann.
Leaving aside any possible intimations of supremacism here - it is being claimed that a group exists within Irish society who want to be identified as Gaels .It doesn't seem extraordinary that the language they wish to be associated with would be called Gaelic.

* Gaelic is a very plausible phonological equivalent of Gaeilge. In fact in Donegal when they refer to the language in Gaelic it actually sounds identical to my preferred designation in English. (The Munster term 'Gaoluinn' is a right old corruption. Some speakers in Connemara would callit GAEGLE ! As did my landlady in Galway Bean Uí Choncheannáin)

* The term Scots Gaidhlig/Gaelic shows that the language that was introduced from Ireland into SW Scotland was seen to be Gaelic and what emerged in Scotland was the Scots version of that Gaelic. Simple.

* The term then has a long history in popular and official usage and serves to distinguish a language that is associated with a subset of the broader Irish population.

Now let me ask you a question. Why do you think the use of the term Gaelic is in any way problematic or should cause any degree of puzzlement?

Why don't you just call it Irish?

Deranged96

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You seem very confused here. Do you think there's any need to specify which Gaelic language we are discussing in this thread?

I'm not confused. It's more accurate to say Irish. That's what it's called. People don't say "Gaelic is failing" or "I'm going to do my Gaelic homework".

The Corinthian

If I said Irish here I'd get blank stares. They know it as Gaelic. Of course, they don't know that it's Irish Gaelic, as far as they're concerned it's just one amorphous language. It's technically incorrect, in that it is Irish Gaelic or perhaps just Irish, but you'd still call it Gaelic if you want to be understood here and in quite a few other countries.

But outside of pedantry, do we really care? We know what we're talking about.

Deranged96

The Corinthian wrote: »

If I said Irish here I'd get blank stares. They know it as Gaelic. Of course, they don't know that it's Irish Gaelic, as far as they're concerned it's just one amorphous language. It's technically incorrect, in that it is Irish Gaelic or perhaps just Irish, but you'd still call it Gaelic if you want to be understood here and in quite a few other countries.

But outside of pedantry, do we really care? We know what we're talking about.

But sure there is no point in a discussion about the future of the language when we can't reach a consensus about what it's supposed to be called in English.

Anyway, I've given too much to this thread and I'd say I've sacrificed a few LC points over it, now I need to focus on the remaining exams.

Good luck to ye all! Bordsie, I will address your post into the finances behind Irish after I look into it thoroughly.

boardise

To Deranged96
Maybe it's possible you are a tad confused .
In my study of linguistics -spread over 40 years-I've never encountered any reference by any scholars to a 'Gaelic language family'.
I think you may have in mind the Celtic language family (a branch of the overall Indo-European language family) which as you undoubtedly know is divided into the P-Celtic branch and the Q-Celtic branch of which Gaelic is a member.
I've never even heard any non-specialist refer to a ' Gaelic language family'.

I note you rather dismissively refer to my comprehensive and carefully crafted reply to your question as 'a big speel'. Interesting .
And there was I thinking we were having a mature and responsible debate where we're trying to achieve a measure of clarity and mutual enlightenment on a matter of contentious public policy.

Deranged96

boardise wrote: »

To Deranged96
Maybe it's possible you are a tad confused .
In my study of linguistics -spread over 40 years-I've never encountered any reference by any scholars to a 'Gaelic language family'.
I think you may have in mind the Celtic language family (a branch of the overall Indo-European language family) which as you undoubtedly know is divided into the P-Celtic branch and the Q-Celtic branch of which Gaelic is a member.
I've never even heard any non-specialist refer to a ' Gaelic language family'.

I note you rather dismissively refer to my comprehensive and carefully crafted reply to your question as 'a big speel'. Interesting .
And there was I thinking we were having a mature and responsible debate where we're trying to achieve a measure of clarity and mutual enlightenment on a matter of contentious public policy.

Ok mr. Linguist, after your 40 years in the field, which term to describe the language spoken in classes around the country is more accurate: Irish or Gaelic?

boardise

@Deranged96
I thought I gave my reasons for my preference for Gaelic but perhaps you did not understand them.
I hear people refer to the language we're talking about as 'Irish' and I know what they mean. Likewise when I refer to Gaelic, people know what I mean. There's no problem here and there's no need to push for the exclusive use of one or the other term. It is a matter of sincere regret to me if you perceive some difficulty with my preferred term.
In fact many languages can more than one name. Offhand I can think of Old English/Anglo-Saxon, Spanish/Castilian.

Deranged96

boardise wrote: »

@Deranged96
I thought I gave my reasons for my preference for Gaelic but perhaps you did not understand them.
I hear people refer to the language we're talking about as 'Irish' and I know what they mean. Likewise when I refer to Gaelic, people know what I mean. There's no problem here and there's no need to push for the exclusive use of one or the other term. It is a matter of sincere regret to me if you perceive some difficulty with my preferred term.
In fact many languages can more than one name. Offhand I can think of Old English/Anglo-Saxon, Spanish/Castilian.

I asked you a simple question, in your field of study, and you did not answer it.

Maybe I'm a bit slow, I think I understand the reasons for your preference, now I'm asking for your educated opinion on which term is more accurate: Irish or Gaelic?

And seeing as I have such difficulty understanding these things, perhaps a one word answer?

indioblack

Deranged96 wrote: »

I asked you a simple question, in your field of study, and you did not answer it.

Maybe I'm a bit slow, I think I understand the reasons for your preference, now I'm asking for your educated opinion on which term is more accurate: Irish or Gaelic?

And seeing as I have such difficulty understanding these things, perhaps a one word answer?

Well, here's two words - who cares?

Deranged96

indioblack wrote: »

Well, here's two words - who cares?

Evidently two people do

indioblack

Deranged96 wrote: »

Evidently two people do

Ok - it's Irish or Gaelic and few people speak it - and this kind of debate has been going on since before the invention of steam.
Whatever you do with Irish it's unlikely to flourish whilst people continue not to learn it.
You can blame government schemes, educational practices and so on.
But until most people want to learn it - and use it - it will remain in the position it has now.

Deranged96

indioblack wrote: »

Ok - it's Irish or Gaelic and few people speak it - and this kind of debate has been going on since before the invention of steam.
Whatever you do with Irish it's unlikely to flourish whilst people continue not to learn it.
You can blame government schemes, educational practices and so on.
But until most people want to learn it - and use it - it will remain in the position it has now.

I couldn't agree more

boardise

I agree -you couldn't.:D

Deranged96

boardise wrote: »

I agree -you couldn't.:D

I agree that Irish needs interest to survive, and that interest has to come from the grass roots.

I agree that its called Irish and gaelic.

I just want to know which word is more accurate

boardise

I think Gaelic is more accurate but I'm quite happy to be in a minority. Being in a minority is a blessed state these days. You dare not say anything negative about a minority -they must be cosseted and maximally respected at all times. So there.
Incidentally, it's interesting to note note that the accepted Gaelic equivalent for the adjective 'Irish' is not Gaelach but rather 'Eireannach'.

Deranged96

boardise wrote: »

I think Gaelic is more accurate but I'm quite happy to be in a minority. Being in a minority is a blessed state these days. You dare not say anything negative about a minority -they must be cosseted and maximally respected at all times. So there.
Incidentally, it's interesting to note note that the accepted Gaelic equivalent for the adjective 'Irish' is not Gaelach but rather 'Eireannach'.

Thank you.

Well I think the grater minority we have to think about is the Irish (Gaelic) speakers.

DyldeBrill

This debate will always receive mixed views every time it's brought up.ive read the same old views down through the years on here , getting tired of its repetitiveness. I am a fluent Irish speaker myself and enjoy using the language and speaking it to others. My own views have changed on the language over the years. It shouldn't be forced upon anyone who doesn't want to learn the language and a scientific subject would prove more beneficial to learn in this day of age. That's not to say the language has lost all importance. I do think it's a strong part of our history. The language will never be dead to those who speak it or live their own daily lives through Irish. The haters will always be hate. The government went about teaching Irish in the complete wrong manner by boring the absolute ****e out of students. I could bark on all day about how much the government fcked up but I'd be here forever. More emphasis should have been put on speaking the language rather than reciting peig over and over again.

Iwasfrozen

Deranged96 wrote: »

There are people who appreciate Irish having a modern body of official publications and signs in Irish

Nobody would appreciate the return of follies :P

The number of translators required are very very very very small with everyone that has Irish on their CVs firing one in to the translations office.

Its very drastic to say that the handful of them are taking away from nurses, and I imagine an Irish translator reading that would be deeply hurt.

besides, arn't must of them employed in Brussels?

If they're that hurt they should lobby to have their own jobs made redundant and transfer the much needed money to our health service.

No, didn't think so.

Deranged96

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If they're that hurt they should lobby to have their own jobs made redundant and transfer the much needed money to our health service.

No, didn't think so.

Cannot make heads or tails of this.
Don't know why you're belittling other peoples occupations, you're not above anyone. And I don't think the government operates on a loan system, taking jobs from one area and giving them to another- especially when the areas are completely unrelated.

recipio

In the Irish Times today : Total number of qualified teachers by subject : Irish 4768. French 3313 . German 1347 . Spanish 863. Italian 260.
Does it really make sense to skew resources to the compulsory teaching of Irish when all the evidence suggests we badly need to catch up with European fluency levels. ? As for the wilful waste of money spent translating and printing EU documents into Irish - I feel the red mist descending.

Deranged96

Are universities private or state run?

We have poor levels of fluency in foreign languages for the same reasons as in the UK, we're lazy because we're lucky enough to be fluent in English.

Dan_Solo

Deranged96 wrote: »

But sure there is no point in a discussion about the future of the language when we can't reach a consensus about what it's supposed to be called in English.

Look at it this way, it's a language that 99% of the country don't want to speak and nobody even cares what it's called except the other 1%.

boardise

You can be against the revival project or particular aspects of it without being a 'hater' of Gaelic.

johnny osbourne

beidh sé all right amárach

Iwasfrozen

Deranged96 wrote: »

Cannot make heads or tails of this.
Don't know why you're belittling other peoples occupations, you're not above anyone. And I don't think the government operates on a loan system, taking jobs from one area and giving them to another- especially when the areas are completely unrelated.

Of course they do. The government like any organization has to assign limited resources.

Every euro spent on translating documents no one will ever read is one more euro that could have been spent on education or healthcare.

I'm admonishing people who are, essentially parasites.

johnny osbourne

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course they do. The government like any organization has to assign limited resources.

Every euro spent on translating documents no one will ever read is one more euro that could have been spent on education or healthcare.

I'm admonishing people who are, essentially parasites.

fair play a mhac

Deranged96

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course they do. The government like any organization has to assign limited resources.

Every euro spent on translating documents no one will ever read is one more euro that could have been spent on education or healthcare.

I'm admonishing people who are, essentially parasites.

Right people who do a job that's required by European law and who get paid a wage are parasites on the state who are draining funds from the health and education services. Just because you'll never use their service.

I think that view is disgusting and elitist and self-indulgent. I hope you're out there saving lives and ridding the world of evil.

Deranged96 out

Boom__Boom

recipio wrote: »

In the Irish Times today : Total number of qualified teachers by subject : Irish 4768. French 3313 . German 1347 . Spanish 863. Italian 260.
Does it really make sense to skew resources to the compulsory teaching of Irish when all the evidence suggests we badly need to catch up with European fluency levels. ? As for the wilful waste of money spent translating and printing EU documents into Irish - I feel the red mist descending.

77,185 who speak Irish on a daily basis in Ireland according to the Census and 4,768 qualified teachers, which works out at one qualified Irish teacher for every 16 daily Irish speakers in the land.

Letree

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course they do. The government like any organization has to assign limited resources.

Every euro spent on translating documents no one will ever read is one more euro that could have been spent on education or healthcare.

I'm admonishing people who are, essentially parasites.

Complete waste of time and money. I had reason to ring my local county council a few times recently and the amount of time the automated answering machine wasted speaking in Irish was maddening.

If Irish people wanted to speak Irish like the Israelis speak Hebrew we would have already done it. Its been a 100 years now and we are no further forward, people just aren't interested.

Iwasfrozen

Deranged96 wrote: »

Right people who do a job that's required by European law and who get paid a wage are parasites on the state who are draining funds from the health and education services. Just because you'll never use their service.

I think that view is disgusting and elitist and self-indulgent. I hope you're out there saving lives and ridding the world of evil.

Deranged96 out

That's the point, Irish has no business being an official EU language.

I won't read those documents, you won't read those documents, no one will but we still divert money away from other much needed services to keep these parasites in a job.

recipio

boardise wrote: »

You can be against the revival project or particular aspects of it without being a 'hater' of Gaelic.

Almost everybody on here does not 'hate' Gaelic, we just hate having it imposed on us.
I do 'hate' the hypocrisy of pretending there is a separate Irish Nation that had to detach from the UK and perpetuate a campaign of terror and assassination that the 1916 generation gave us. Revival of Irish which started in 1922 was a central policy in that revolution and has remained a coercive policy since then. Surely it is time to re-think it ?

d2ww

Boom__Boom wrote: »

77,185 who speak Irish on a daily basis in Ireland according to the Census and 4,768 qualified teachers, which works out at one qualified Irish teacher for every 16 daily Irish speakers in the land.

So that's at least 4,768 reasons why absolutely nothing will change in the education system.
30 years ago, I was asking myself why I had to waste my time doing Leaving Cert Irish, and in 30 years time, kids will be asking the same thing. It's depressing really.

The Corinthian

recipio wrote: »

I do 'hate' the hypocrisy of pretending there is a separate Irish Nation that had to detach from the UK and perpetuate a campaign of terror and assassination that the 1916 generation gave us. Revival of Irish which started in 1922 was a central policy in that revolution and has remained a coercive policy since then. Surely it is time to re-think it ?

The Gaelic revival, which included other aspects, such as sport, actually began in the nineteenth century. When the Free State was formed, and especially when Fianna Fail got into power, Ireland sought to replace the largely British culture that was left behind with an native one, adopting and promoting the ideals of that earlier revival and making them official policy.

You'll find such nationalist social engineering was not unusual at the time; Italy and Germany were two notable proponents of the same policies. Of course, we still follow those policies is the difference.

To begin with, it was a largely sectarian and class based culture that sought to replace the middle to upper class, Protestant, Anglo-Irish, urban elite with a more 'indigenous' one. Of course, this meant the promotion of a peasant, agrarian, Roman Catholic class as the new elite, which rejected hierarchy, while ironically aping the hierarchical practices of it's neighbour.

As David Gray, US Ambassador to Ireland in the 1940's, noted:

"The de Valera revolution had been to a large extent a ‘social movement’. It appealed to the ‘common man’ and repudiated the symbols of privilege... yet only eight years after coming to power this new aristocracy had all turned out in tails and white ties in the best London tradition"

And with it came the 'reinvention' of Ireland, with the promotion of the Irish language, dancing (which was almost completely reinvented artificially during this period), sport and so on - all aspects meant to cleanse ourselves of any residual 'Britishness' and fulfill De Valera's vision of "comely maidens dancing at the crossroads".

Thing is that it was all fur and no knickers even back then. Of the language, Gray noted:

"Why Mr de Valera replied to my English speech in Irish was a question not difficult to answer. Both languages are sanctioned by the new Constitution, but Mr de Valera and his Separatist group were anxious to impress on the outside world that English is only an unfortunate and temporary makeshift and that Irish is the true and natural tongue of the nation, though today only one person in six speaks it. Very few Irish politicians speak Irish except as American High School students learn to ‘speak’ French, but they usually begin their speeches with a paragraph in Irish, which they have memorised, and then continue in English. It is the badge of being ‘Irish’ Irish, like the Gaelicisation of proper names."

Sound familiar? That's because nothing much has changed in this regard, except that fewer than one in six speaks Irish today. We still play this ridiculous lip service to a largely invented culture - we still see official letters starting with "A Chara" and ending with "Is mise le meas", and nothing but English in-between. And we still financially support the descendants of this peasant, agrarian, Roman Catholic elite who are suckling at the tit of endless grants, jobs, tax breaks and advantage, paid for by the rest of the nation.

And let's be clear, that's what they are and what they see themselves as; a minority who have clear advantage and support - an elite. All for an artificed national identity and which ultimately, they (as custodians of that identity, tasked and paid to promote it) oversaw only it's decline.

Whatever about the language being alive or not, these clowns need to go. The jobs for the buachaillí have to be abolished, they've failed in their sole task - the promotion of the language and culture - why are we still paying these parasites?

recipio

A good summary and I concur entirely. DeValera et al drove a wedge down the Irish sea and made anti British feeling almost compulsory if you wanted to 'get on' in the new Free State. I believe land acquisition lay at the core of the Anglo -Irish 'war' and we are still feeling the ripples of that policy. I do feel however that the last election was a watershed in roughly separating a rural conservative vote from an urban liberal one. The next election will be interesting.

Dan_Solo

Deranged96 wrote: »

Right people who do a job that's required by European law and who get paid a wage are parasites on the state who are draining funds from the health and education services. Just because you'll never use their service.

I think that view is disgusting and elitist and self-indulgent. I hope you're out there saving lives and ridding the world of evil.

Deranged96 out

Just about every single other aspect of the public service is at least designed in some way to help the Irish people.
Teaching Irish confers no benefit whatsoever. Their "service" is irrelevant. Yes, I still maintain 4,000 bakers making us free buns and cakes would be a better use of state resources.

dr.fuzzenstein

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's the point, Irish has no business being an official EU language.

I won't read those documents, you won't read those documents, no one will but we still divert money away from other much needed services to keep these parasites in a job.

I wouldn't go as far as to call people parasites, if I could get a cushy government job translating documents that very few people read into documents no one will ever read for a decent salary with job security and a guaranteed pension, I would be all over that like a shot.
I don't blame the people who are in that job, it's not their fault. If that was me I would just noodle everything through Google translate and take the afternoon off to "collect my paycheck".
The problem is, I don't think right now there is a choice, if it is recognized as a language we have to translate those documents.
My beef would be the amount of useless paperwork in the EU to begin with. China and India will have bought and sold us 10 times in the time it takes to translate the lunch menu in the cantine in Brussels into 24 different languages.

The Corinthian

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I wouldn't go as far as to call people parasites, if I could get a cushy government job translating documents that very few people read into documents no one will ever read for a decent salary with job security and a guaranteed pension, I would be all over that like a shot.
I don't blame the people who are in that job, it's not their fault. If that was me I would just noodle everything through Google translate and take the afternoon off to "collect my paycheck".

I take it that for you personal ethics is something other people do?

dr.fuzzenstein

The Corinthian wrote: »

I take it that for you personal ethics is something other people do?

I'm just saying those jobs exist and it would seem they have to exist as far as EU law is concerned. They are probably not the most stressful jobs in the world and the workload could probably not be described as huge. And if a fada was in the wrong place, the world would probably not end. Someone has to do it, maybe people who find assistant librarian in charge of dusting to be far too dangerous and exciting.
If there is an issue with these jobs, we have to look towards the people who created them, not to the people who do them.

The Corinthian

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm just saying those jobs exist and it would seem they have to exist as far as EU law is concerned.

I thought that you were saying if you could live off the pigs back in a job that you know was scamming the tax payer, you'd have no problem doing so.

Personally I think there's a problem with people like that. In Greece those people get to retire at 45. See how well that's worked out for them.

Dan_Solo

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm just saying those jobs exist and it would seem they have to exist as far as EU law is concerned. They are probably not the most stressful jobs in the world and the workload could probably not be described as huge. And if a fada was in the wrong place, the world would probably not end. Someone has to do it, maybe people who find assistant librarian in charge of dusting to be far too dangerous and exciting.
If there is an issue with these jobs, we have to look towards the people who created them, not to the people who do them.

I'm with you on this one. It's the state's job not to have these kinds of wasteful pointless resource pits. I can't blame anyone for taking the easy option on what is essentially a handout for (most likely) being raised by parents who have a particular, entirely non-useful, skill.

Iwasfrozen

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm with you on this one. It's the state's job not to have these kinds of wasteful pointless resource pits. I can't blame anyone for taking the easy option on what is essentially a handout for (most likely) being raised by parents who have a particular, entirely non-useful, skill.

I can.