Thursday, August 27, 2009
When talk isn’t cheap…
COMEDIAN David Mitchell pontificates upon Scots Gaelic and taxpayer funding, although the argument could perhaps be applied to Northern Ireland… but to Irish or Ulster-Scots?
Belfast Gonzo @ 11:20 PM
Though I agree with his broad arguement about lingiustic evolution, and like him as a comedian, it does slightly grate that a home counties Englishman feels he must butt in on this Scottish matter. The costs are a drop in the ocean compared with say, the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq.
By the same token, if the Scots want Englishmen to stop interfering in their matters they know what they have to do. Keep voting SNP!
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 02:11 AMWhat a smug, stupid, condescending twit.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 03:01 AMWhat an annoying voice!
who cares what this twit thinketh?
Unfunny too.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 05:39 AMHe’s a funny guy usually but what he is missing is the fact that we don’t leave things like language and culture in general to evolution but to policy and education.
Would he agree to allowing evolution (which in this case really means the free market) to decide the destiny of Shakespeare’s plays? Of course not. They are subsidised and and are part of the education system all over the world. We don’t hold that they should compete on an equal footing with whatever ephemeral rubbish we are enjoying at a particular moment in time.
They are too important for that and it is on those lines that the argument about languages must be made. There is still an argument to be had of course. The primary responsibility for a language lies with those who speak it but government should be a partner in preserving what is valuable.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 06:11 AMso no real argument against common sense so far from the pro language posters, just ignoring what is actually said. a tax payer is voicing an opinion that spending his and other tax payers money on a language as if it is necessary for people to communicate is a silly waste of money. exactly what is being said in NI.
cultural funding for those wishing to learn an old language, fine. funding to alter government departments, road signs, interpreters etc, no. just common sense.he mentions hindi - my indian work colleagues tell me that there are 22 official languages in india and 1000 different dialects. im told that people from one part of india cant understand the language of people from other parts. all the indians in work use english to communicate, funny that!
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 07:27 AMI don’t agree with him, but the utterly stupid manplaying above obviously standss in leiu of a counter argument. Thanks Henry for at least making an effort.
His argument is a reasonable if rather undeveloped: it’s about utility. Now, let’s hear a counterblast that’s not based on cliche or simple hatred of the English.
Otherwise, you’re just proving his point.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 07:28 AMThe thing is is that he is totally blind to the historical facts.
There was nothing free market about the aftermath of Culloden.
Gaelic was banned! - that is not a free market.
The people were cleared, forced to emigrate, schools in English only, courts in English only.
You simply cannot do ever thing in your power to destroy a culture and then ignore these attempts in your anaylsis.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 07:39 AMI hate to defend a guy that I don’t agree with but isn’t that verging on historical fallacy GGN?
Apart from the fact Mitchell doesn’t touch the causes of language desertion, he wasn’t around when it substantially happened.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 07:46 AMMick,
Point out the inaccuracies and I’ll answer, though maybe not today.
The point is that there is and always was massive state intervention in linguistic terms in Scotland - in favour of English.
A few million spent on Gaelic really is very little in comparison, but a comparison there must be.
To be honest, I saw this vid a while back, I would find it difficult to engage it much without breaking the man rule - so I won’t, shouldnt have started of course but hit the ground running this morning.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 07:56 AMgot to agree with GGN, and not just for Scotland but elsewhere in the empire aswell.
I found it entertaining and people should get over themselves, he’s a comedian voicing his opinion.
Indians communicate in English, mmmh why so, is it because there and in other countries English was the language of the ruling classes? and so to progress that was the language needed.
What is wrong with making a recognising a language spoken by 60,000 and 600,000, they have different issues and need to be addressed differently.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 08:10 AMAppreciate it GGN.
Last line: the implied fallacy is that Mitchell is a cypher for the whole brutish English nation and all that was ever done in its name. He’s (as we are) merely a corollary of mix of historic processes.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 08:12 AM“Last line: the implied fallacy is that Mitchell is a cypher for the whole brutish English nation and all that was ever done in its name. He’s (as we are) merely a corollary of mix of historic processes. “
Absolutely agree.
I agree with Fin, the guy is comedian. It was entertaining, somewhat extreme but he was trying to wind up people.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 08:17 AMMick
That’s a straw man. You can’t ignore historical context. Was slavery irrelevant to civil Rights in the US? And GGN’s point is fair - the language wasn’t simply destroyed by “natural” forces, so it shouldn’t have to rely on “natural” forces to maintain it.
Second, an argument based on pure utility is deeply flawed. Shakespeare’s plays are mentioned above. The world can exist quite happily without them. They made a big contribution to the English, but those have been assimilated by this point. Destroying them would not affect the utility of the language. They are kept and celebrated for other rasons. He lightly dismissed the cultural argument but as much as it is thrown about lightly, it isn’t an important thing.
Third. All languages are different. Translations are never about simply translating directly, world for word. It is often much harder to capture the precise meaning of one language in another. To lose that is to lose part of not just your voice, but the voice of all humanity. Maintaining a language helps maintain a sense of self, a sense of uniqueness and a sense of your own voice. These are not small things in a world that can pressure toward homogenity, and where traditional ties break down.
The amount of money we are talking about here is tiny, relatively. And given his vote has no effect on that budget afaik, what’s it to him anyway?
Finally, increase the amount of people using a language, and you increase utility. So encouraging the language in and of itself increases utility.
That said, I think those passionate about their languages need to work out what they want. The South needs to drop the fiction that everyone is going to be speaking the language, at least in a couple of lifetimes, and focus on generating a sufficient critical mass to keep it alive and vibrant. I think SF actually hit on a decent idea, probably accidentally. West Belfast Gaeltacht Quarter is a good idea as it incentivises the use of the language, and encourages density and a place for people to meet and communicate. It helps create a cultural. Encourage similar things elsewhere, try creating new Gaeltachts in new ways rather just maintain old ones. Support online infrastructure rather than print media, because the former connects people in a way the latter doesn’t.
Some might seee that as pushing Irish into a Ghetto. But at the Electric Picnic last year there was an Irish language stage. It’ll be back this year. Would it be a better system to have piecemeal Irish around the other stages? I can’t see how that makes any sense.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 08:19 AM“Mitchell is a cypher for the whole brutish English nation”
On that didn’t he just do a programme all about his Scottish ancestry?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 08:24 AMfin, maybe ruling classes were a factor 100s of years ago. but the reason most countries learn english today is because its the language the world communicates in.
its a strange contrast where the rest of the world wants to learn english, but in the english speaking british isles, there are people who want to revive ancient languages, and then insist on communicating in them…i dunno..
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 08:32 AMeranu
I am unaware that other countries wish to give up their own languagES rather than just learn English as well. Perhaps you have some supporting evidence?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 08:58 AMKensei,
You’re missing my point. Historical context matters to the argument, but it’s fallacy to link it with Mitchell personal views.
The fact is we’re already way off track because of that fallacy. We could be talking about how he’s actually got it wrong.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 09:03 AMThe comedian touches the Presbyterian psyche which stripped to the bone says “Fund it yourself or fuck off—don`t ask me to pay for it”. This applies to Ulster scots, Irish or other “non essentials”.
The guy has a point the public sector is littered with waste and incompetence don`t add to it.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 09:04 AMGaelic is my first langauge and i’d say his argument is perfectly valid. He supports the teaching of the language and believes provisions should be made for those who wish to continue speaking it or learn it.
Most of the people who argue against support for Gaelic(or Welsh or whatever) reveal themselves as hypocrites who are not against massive public spending in itself, just against public spending on anything they happen not to take any interest in and fully expect that all of their interests should be provided for by the state (and other peoples money). I am deeply uncomfortable when i look at some of the ways money is being used to promote the minority languages - interpreters at meetings, utterly pointless translations of government documents and NHS papers etc.
“On that didn’t he just do a programme all about his Scottish ancestry?”
Yes. He traced his ancestry to the Highlands - Sutherland and Skye i believe. Presumably this is what led to his making this video.
“its a strange contrast where the rest of the world wants to learn english, but in the english speaking british isles, there are people who want to revive ancient languages, and then insist on communicating in them…”
For those of us in the British Isles who do not speak English natively and whose families do not speak English natively and whose home towns/regions do not and have never spoken English natively there is nothing strange about it. I realise it can, at times, be a difficult concept to grasp for English speakers when it comes to the topic of language but the world does not revolve around you. We are not ‘insisting’ on speaking a language other than yours out of spite or to be awkward anymore than you speak English to be spiteful or awkward. We do so because it’s our native language - why on Earth would we speak to each other in what is a foreign language rather than our native language?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 09:09 AMI’m confused - is he arguing for a free market in languages? If so then the language market should be deregulated. Taxpayers should be free to chose to communicate in whatever language they want. I gaurantee you, that that would have the exact opposite effect than what he thinks. A multitude of languages would blossom at the expense of English!
—-
But I don’t think he is arguing for that. He has expressed his democratic wish that his tax pounds not be spent on the restoration of Scots Gaelic. Fine. I’m sure most of his neighbours agree. Fine. No Scots Gaelic road signs or Gaelscoileanna for Essex then.However, it is perfectly valid for other tax payers to express a desire that the some of the tax pounds they contribute go towards supporting the language (much like it valid for some taxpayers in NI to argue that some of their tax pounds go to enabling Orangemen to march for example).
I think as presented, the argument was deeply flawed - and really made the case for the opposition either in terms of deregulation or in terms with democratic allocation of taxpayer resources..
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 09:17 AM“I am unaware that other countries wish to give up their own languagES rather than just learn English as well. Perhaps you have some supporting evidence?”
Oh it’s rarely a deliberate or conscious effort but there are several countries which are effectively commiting linguistic suicide. The Scandinavians are a prime example. Almost 100% of their population speaks English to a decent, usually fluent, standard and certainly in Sweden (i think also in Denmark and Norway) they have actually legislated that all higher level university work (graduate standard) most be taught, researched and written in English. You start creating sections of society where the native language is no longer used and you start, slowly, to weaken the language and its speakers. The vocabulary of the language will cease to grow as it once did and its speakers will feel more comfortable conversing and thinking in the foreign language which they associate with that area (higher academia/science etc) than in their native language. A hundred years ago the situation was probably similar with the Gaelic speaking regions of Ireland and Scotland. A small proportion remained monolingual while the great, great majority had become bilingual in Gaelic and English. A century on and the language is on its last legs (regardless of token efforts by nationalists on both sides of the the straits). Of course the situation is far from comparable what with the Scandinavian nations being sovereign, and when you consider that both Ireland and Scotland had significant blocks within them who were not only monolingual English but actively antagonistic towards the native languages but even so there are lessons to be learnt.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 09:18 AMCostello -
I don’t know if that will lead to the collapse of the Scandinavian languages. Language teaching (outside of school, where it has stagnated imho) is improving all the time (innovations like the Pimsleur Method and Michel Thomas Method and even Google Translate), making it easier for people to pick up new languages at a reasonable level. English is the new lingua-franca in Europe, but I’m not convinced that the effort level to be able to communicate in English is as high as it was 100 or 200 years ago. I.e. it need not come at the expense of maintaining their native tongues. In fact, I think that had we the same set of resources available for Gaelic (Irish / Scots) as are available for other European languages (e.g. full range of Pimsluer, Assimil and Michel Thomas Method courses chief among them) - many more people would learn them, with less effort.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 09:27 AMMack,
The Rosetta Stone method is available for Irish. Just some info.
I think the Michel Thomas method would be brillant but it is copyrighted - a version is used in Cumann Chluain Árd in Belfast but and the results are very impressive.
I used it over two days for Italian and amazed all around me that I had learnt Italian in two days, but then the mental trick wore off! and within two days I had lost most of it - hypmotism!
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 09:33 AMGGN -
There are over 27 hours of material for Michel Thomas Method Italian, I suspect you probably only did the first couple? (Basic introduction course?).
It should take a learner much longer to complete them as you normally have to pause to make an attempt to answer the questions. (They are - Foundation - 8 CDs, Foundation Review - 2 CDs, Advanced - 5 CDs, Advanced Review - 1 CD, Language Builder - 2CDs, Vocabularly - 5 CDs)Likewise there are more than 45 hours of Pimsleur Italian (in Pimsluer I,II,III - another 10 or so in IV but it’s shorter and seems to be tailored for one particular industry).
Between them, they’re a pretty good introduction. If those resources were available for Irish - it would be enough to get people speaking together with some confidence though far from fluency (esp mixed with knowledge from school).
Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 09:48 AMIsn’t Mitchell of Scottish ancestry? While idly flicking from channel to channel I saw him talking to distant family members on Skye. (The island, not the digital network). That might have influenced him somewhat. It’s not scientific, but I’ve observed that many of those most hostile to Irish & Scots Gaelic are from areas which were until recently Gaelic-speaking, or who have some ancestral connection they seem ashamed of.
By the way, what Mitchell said pales into insignificance compared to Declan Lynch’s tirade in the Sunday Independent: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/no-surrender-ever-to-the-enemy-within-1867218.html
It’s a hateful, hysterical rant of a type that’s become very common, and it begs the question how should Irish-speakers respond. The indefatigable Liam Carson has penned a well-written reply, frankly acknowledging the hurt caused. But, of course, Lynch wanted to hurt, wanted to create controversy. He’ll probably respond to Liam’s letter by saying that, being from Belfast, he’s not even Irish. That’s what Indo journalists do. Perhaps a better response would be for Foras na Gaeilge, An Roinn Gnóthaí Pobail, Gaeltachta agus Tuaithe etc. not to place ads in the Indo while the editors allow articles to equate Irish-speaking with child sexual abuse.Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 @ 09:58 AM
