There was an interesting article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday (Friday) about the repeated difficulty a primary school in Inverness, set up specifically (with Scottish Executive [aka 'Government']) money, in other words our taxes, has had in recruiting a head teacher who actually speaks Gaelic. Basically the idea is that if a new generation of Scots can be educated (aka 'brain-washed') using this moribund, if not actually 'dead' language as their main means of communication, then the language won't actually die out completely in a new generation. The fact they have had to employ someone who is not a Gaelic speaker, and not even a Scot, but a Swede (and lovely people the Swedes are, I have absolutely no criticism of the person employed, nor of course of her home country), reveals just how artificial this whole project is. Far better to educate these children in English and give them a fighting chance of a decent future, rather than try to make them pawns in some ludicrous project to resurrect a language that is on its last legs.
If people wish to use Gaelic as a means of communication I have absolutely no objection and wish them the best of luck, just to be clear, but I do think that it is, ahem, 'short-sighted' and not to put too fine a point on it not in the children's own best interests to foist a little-used language upon them for quasi political purposes.
Showing posts with label English language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label English language. Show all posts
Friday, 12 October 2012
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
"Bad Language" - or how Gaelic is used as a means to differentiate (pointlessly)
(See PS/ at end)
There is a really excellent editorial in this week's issue of the Nairnshire Telegraph (dated 4SEP2012), of which regrettably no on-line version is available, but as I do occasionally with articles from our 'local rag' I am going to reproduce verbatim the content for your delectation and indeed for your enlgihtenment about what rational people in this area think about the creeping (perhaps even 'creepy') attempt to 'Gaelic-icise' every aspect of life in this area:
Now, there are parts of that article that strike me as foolish, verging on the melodramatic and faintly ridiculous, but it nevertheless does try to address the linguistic origins of the peoples of this small part of Scotland in a realistic and honest way. But the importance of this minority language should not be exaggerated nor viewed romantically and certainly not as of equal importance to the principal language of most of the British Isles, English. It does of course have a place in our linguistic origins and in the daily lives of a [very] small number of people even today and that place should be respected, but the rest of the population should equally certainly not be held to 'ransom' by being required to adapt their lives to accommodate this minority language by accepting it as of almost greater importance than the language used by the bulk of the population in road signs and in other public signs.
PS/ (Thursday 6SEP2012 17.45 BST) It is interesting to note that most of the comments on this tedious propaganda article in another local blog share my views on the unwanted, by the bulk of the local population, proliferation of street signs in our community with a [very] minority language given priority over the language spoken by the vast bulk of the population here. As for the blog-writer's comments about this linguistic-vandalism having 'cross-party' support this, if true, merely confirms just how sick and shallow politcs in this country has become - just as the major component in the current Coalition Government supported the idiotic economic policies of the last Government until the recession which began in 2007 took hold. The expression "flogging a dead horse" comes to mind! Short-termism and pandering to 'faddy' (and more importantly, malign) policies is NOT a way to run a country. Even Nicola Sturgeon is now forced to concede that Scots who do not support the 'separatist' policies she champions are not unpatriotic. The riposte in the comments thread by the blog owner that "the developer pays for new signs on housing schemes" is merely a reflection of the reality that developers must get their projects approved by Councillors and planners, and the fact that it would take a brave prospective Councillor in Scotland today to 'call out' the nonsense of Highland Council's engineered bilingual streetsigns policy. Doh! Finally, it is quite clear that the linked article was written only to try and rebut the recent editorial in The Nairnshire - the difference is that people PAY to read that publication, simply high-lighting the idiocy of the recent comment in another article in the sad blog in the link where the author writes of the 'prize' in a recent pseudo-quiz "A year's free subscription to the Gurn to anyone that does." - mildly amusing, I agree, but why waste energy writing such tedious nonsense? Rant over .... for now ;). I have refrained for far too long, recently, in drawing attention to the nonsense spewed out by that 'organ' (due respect to that other [much more] august 'organ', Private Eye, is hereby acknowledged). I don't expect I will gain many 'friends' locally for speaking out as I have just done, but who cares? I am WAY beyond caring about such trifles; my blog, in the 10+ years it has existed, has never been written with the aim of being populist, or nakedly partisan - and it never will. PPS/ I'm glad that my comment and link in that 'other' blog has now been published and resulted in two things - (1) a ridiculous comment by that fount of all knowledge 'Aye Right' who takes a swipe (perhaps deserved, ha ha - Ed) at me by name, but of course that 'esteemed' individual passes him-/her-self off using a pseudonym which epitomises the closed-minded attitudes of far too many in this community - (2) the owner of that blog announces that comments are 'closed', an all too frequent occurrence there when 'controversial' (i.e. rather too robustly challenging) views are aired there. Finally (for the afore-mentioned 'Aye Right'), of course I am an 'avid' reader, how else am I to get my laughs here - Go in Peace ....
There is a really excellent editorial in this week's issue of the Nairnshire Telegraph (dated 4SEP2012), of which regrettably no on-line version is available, but as I do occasionally with articles from our 'local rag' I am going to reproduce verbatim the content for your delectation and indeed for your enlgihtenment about what rational people in this area think about the creeping (perhaps even 'creepy') attempt to 'Gaelic-icise' every aspect of life in this area:
Editorial article - 4th Setpember 2012 "BAD LANGUAGE" The infiltration of Gaelic into local nomenclature has reached a new level in Nairn with bilingual street plates in one of the town's newest developments. It has angered at least one Nairnite but it is a reflection of Highland Council's policy of promoting the Gaelic language. The problem is that very few people in Nairn speak the language except enthusiasts and some incomers from Gaelic speaking areas. The question of relevancy is supreme. The presence of Gaelic in heritage terms in Nairnshire is undeniable. Almost all the place-names of the old county are Gaelic in their form, if not their origin. The language lingers in the local accent and in the pronunciation of some local names. The Nairn area is the place where the historic Gaeltacht begins. There is no doubt that between Forres and Inverness there was a sharp linguistic divide roughly centred on Nairn. Nairn may have been beyond The Pale of a mediaeval ethnic cleansing of Gaelic (Irish) speakers from Moray. Gaelic was widely spoken in the area up to the middle of the 19th century and Gaelic fluency was a requirement in some ecclesiastical appointments upto the beginning of the 20th century. But use of Gaelic died out substantially after World War I and the last speaker of a local dialect died in the 1970s. Whatever the wealth of evidence for its former presence, Gaelic has gone from present-day Nairn. However it is policy from Government to local authority that the language be nurtured and certainly be promoted in some areas. Because of its history, the use of Gaelic locally in this way is a moot point. It is certainly not justified by use. It is unfortunate however that as it moves from the Council's own signange to more general presence one of the first examples presents the more idiotic aspect of transliteration. It may be that this is just an over-enthusiastic interpretation of council policy by a developer eager to please. But it's not the only one we have seen recently. We see the name of Edinburgh's Haymarket railway station has been rendered literally into Gaelic. What really is the purpose of this? And what is the importance of language anyway? It is first of all about communication and yet, these days, it seems to be more and more about difference. Language as a definition of culture rapidly turns into politics. The patchwork of nationalities that is Europe is largely separated out by language and truly polyglot states are rare and often seriously divided. The future of the European Union may yet founder on this fact of linguistic diversity. Yet language is often transient and on a surprisingly short time scale. Gaelic was adopted by the Picts but its heyday of only a few centuries was overtaken by English which has at least a thousand years of currency in Scotland. If research into the genetic make-up of the population is anything to go by it appears to reveal some very old strains. What languages have come and gone since the ice melted and does it really matter anyway? We know who the people were. Us. It is the political aspect that is eventually of concern. There is little doubt that Gaelic is on its death bed and being kept going by some hefty transfusions of money and political good will. There is no problem with giving it a chance to survive and preserving the culture that it represents. Outside some future apocalypse, modern media and archiving will ensure that Gaelic never becomes the dry soundless collection that Latin and Anglo-Saxon have become, or the near mystery that is the Pictish language. But what worries us is the possibility that Gaelic will be used as a political tool. It is one thing to use signs to suggest that we are something we are not quite, it is quite another to use a language to separate people and to exclude. That is truly bad language. |
PS/ (Thursday 6SEP2012 17.45 BST) It is interesting to note that most of the comments on this tedious propaganda article in another local blog share my views on the unwanted, by the bulk of the local population, proliferation of street signs in our community with a [very] minority language given priority over the language spoken by the vast bulk of the population here. As for the blog-writer's comments about this linguistic-vandalism having 'cross-party' support this, if true, merely confirms just how sick and shallow politcs in this country has become - just as the major component in the current Coalition Government supported the idiotic economic policies of the last Government until the recession which began in 2007 took hold. The expression "flogging a dead horse" comes to mind! Short-termism and pandering to 'faddy' (and more importantly, malign) policies is NOT a way to run a country. Even Nicola Sturgeon is now forced to concede that Scots who do not support the 'separatist' policies she champions are not unpatriotic. The riposte in the comments thread by the blog owner that "the developer pays for new signs on housing schemes" is merely a reflection of the reality that developers must get their projects approved by Councillors and planners, and the fact that it would take a brave prospective Councillor in Scotland today to 'call out' the nonsense of Highland Council's engineered bilingual streetsigns policy. Doh! Finally, it is quite clear that the linked article was written only to try and rebut the recent editorial in The Nairnshire - the difference is that people PAY to read that publication, simply high-lighting the idiocy of the recent comment in another article in the sad blog in the link where the author writes of the 'prize' in a recent pseudo-quiz "A year's free subscription to the Gurn to anyone that does." - mildly amusing, I agree, but why waste energy writing such tedious nonsense? Rant over .... for now ;). I have refrained for far too long, recently, in drawing attention to the nonsense spewed out by that 'organ' (due respect to that other [much more] august 'organ', Private Eye, is hereby acknowledged). I don't expect I will gain many 'friends' locally for speaking out as I have just done, but who cares? I am WAY beyond caring about such trifles; my blog, in the 10+ years it has existed, has never been written with the aim of being populist, or nakedly partisan - and it never will. PPS/ I'm glad that my comment and link in that 'other' blog has now been published and resulted in two things - (1) a ridiculous comment by that fount of all knowledge 'Aye Right' who takes a swipe (perhaps deserved, ha ha - Ed) at me by name, but of course that 'esteemed' individual passes him-/her-self off using a pseudonym which epitomises the closed-minded attitudes of far too many in this community - (2) the owner of that blog announces that comments are 'closed', an all too frequent occurrence there when 'controversial' (i.e. rather too robustly challenging) views are aired there. Finally (for the afore-mentioned 'Aye Right'), of course I am an 'avid' reader, how else am I to get my laughs here - Go in Peace ....
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
What we mean ... What they think we mean
Occasionally I come across something interesting, or amusing, or both and this seems to qualify.
When British people say something [idiomatically], do other nationalities, whether English-speaking or non English-speaking, always understand accurately what is implied by the words being used? Communications between people using supposedly the same language, English, as their native tongue can certainly be fraught with misunderstanding when British, Americans or Australians are involved, although I'd say this tends to be marginally less so when I've dealt with Canadians. My own experience over the years has led me to understand that very often misunderstandings arise because people (in this case we British) do not necessarily say directly what they mean, out of 'politeness' or an unwillingness to upset the other person in a social or business context. Mind you, it is not only we British who do this - my dealings with non-European nationalities such as Chinese or Japanese have often thrown up similar mutual misunderstandings and for much the same reasons, not to mention the perils of taking at 'face value' what a French person really means when [s]he says something.
Anyway here is what I came across in the Twitter feed of someone I follow:
I asked him where he got it from and he mentioned the website of a UK charity, but it seems they got it from someplace else and so on - this article in the University of Pennsylvania's "Language Log" gives more background although how accurate or exhaustive it is I cannot say. It adds some more detail to the table above and gives a few phrases in French which can mask what is really being said. In my experience all these are scarily accurate.
When British people say something [idiomatically], do other nationalities, whether English-speaking or non English-speaking, always understand accurately what is implied by the words being used? Communications between people using supposedly the same language, English, as their native tongue can certainly be fraught with misunderstanding when British, Americans or Australians are involved, although I'd say this tends to be marginally less so when I've dealt with Canadians. My own experience over the years has led me to understand that very often misunderstandings arise because people (in this case we British) do not necessarily say directly what they mean, out of 'politeness' or an unwillingness to upset the other person in a social or business context. Mind you, it is not only we British who do this - my dealings with non-European nationalities such as Chinese or Japanese have often thrown up similar mutual misunderstandings and for much the same reasons, not to mention the perils of taking at 'face value' what a French person really means when [s]he says something.
Anyway here is what I came across in the Twitter feed of someone I follow:
I asked him where he got it from and he mentioned the website of a UK charity, but it seems they got it from someplace else and so on - this article in the University of Pennsylvania's "Language Log" gives more background although how accurate or exhaustive it is I cannot say. It adds some more detail to the table above and gives a few phrases in French which can mask what is really being said. In my experience all these are scarily accurate.
Friday, 20 August 2010
Seventy years ago today ...
(Prime Minister Winston S Churchill's speech to the House of Commons on 20th August 1940 was not recorded at the time, but re-recorded by him some years later - after the end of the conflict, I believe)
Apart from the dramatic content of this speech, what is so wonderful about it and so many others of his speeches is the sheer quality and elegance of most of his writing; a veritable masterclass in the use of the modern English language.
Saturday, 7 March 2009
Gaelic-English road signs and the hazard they pose
(Please see the UPDATES and the NB/ at end)
Efforts by the [self-]important Gaelic Committee on Highland Council to spread the use of bilingual Gaelic-English road signs on trunk routes into and out of the area are being called into question, at long last, by evidence (so far anecdotal) that they impede driver understanding of the directions being given and may lead to accidents. Before ploughing on with installing more of these bilingual signs into and throughout the region, studies are being called for by Stewart Stevenson, Scottish transport minister, to determine what problems, if any, can be quantified.
I tried to make the last part of the previous paragraph as 'neutral' as possible, but let me be clear - I consider some of the bilingual Gaelic-English signs a positive menace and have on occasions 'whizzed' past an example of these signs at 50 or 60 MPH in my car and questionned whether I was on the correct road, mostly roads with which I am perfectly familiar. The problem is that the Gaelic version appears above the English version in the same [or larger?) size of typeface and in a brighter and more prominent colour, which possibly only makes it appear bigger.
Unfortunately Highland Council's Gaelic committee chairman, Hamish Fraser, has 'form' on this issue, receiving criticism from a Caithness councillor as long as three years ago for arrogantly riding roughshod over criticism of the road-sign language policy he advocates.
(Other articles I have written about Gaelic language issues may be found here and here, both written during 2005 when a Gaelic Language Bill was being debated by the Scottish Parliament.)
UPDATE: (Wednesday 18MAR09 09.30 RST) Very interesting comments to this article; commenters have flung the term 'racist' in my direction - specifically commenter 2 ("Mac 'ic Iain") and commenter 4 and 6 (both by "AaronK"). Whilst I dispute the use of the term 'racist' in this context in relation to the opinions I have expressed (perhaps a 'linguistic imperialist' might be a better term to use as although that is not true either at least it bears some relation to the matters under discussion), I decided to do a little research to try and identify who these two for all intents and purposes 'anonymous' commenters are.
"AaronK" seems to be in Calgary, Alberta (Canada) and using a Shaw Communications Inc internet connection, with IP 96.49.138.145.
"Mac 'ic Iain" seems also to be in Calgary, Alberta (Canada) and using a server at "Calgary Roman Catholic School" as the internet connection, with IP 139.142.154.129.
Interestingly, a couple of moments before the timestamp of "AaronK's" first comment (comment 4) there was a visit from another western Canadian origin based on searches involving this blog article seemingly from Richmond, British Columbia (Canada), also using a Shaw Communications Inc internet connection, with IP 24.78.150.173.
What seems clear, therefore, is that I have offended one or perhaps two "Gaels" in western Canada. Tough! I do wonder if the offence taken may have causes in addition to the purported 'racism' with which I am charged, given that I am gay and that one of the commenters, at least, seems either to teach at or attend the "Calgary Roman Catholic School"; I will fling around a term of my own - the Catholic Church is not known as tolerant in its attitudes towards human sexuality and I believe it is institutionally 'homophobic' and has historically, in many different countries, connived at covering up the sexual misdemeanors of priests in its service involving child molestation. The very recent comments of the Pontiff in relation to homosexuality highlight just what a sick organisation the Roman Catholic Church is; it is not alone as a religious organisation in having 'weird' views about human sexuality, of course. I consider myself an atheist, although my family background is mixed Protestant (Scottish) and Catholic (Republic of Ireland).
Finally, I have observed in my site visit statistics that this article has been viewed both by people in Nairn (where I have my Scottish home) and by people visiting from the Scottish Parliament and from Scottish Media Group, none of which have resulted in the hysterical reactions, or any reaction, of my correspondents from Calgary, Alberta (Canada). I think that factor is quite telling.
2nd UPDATE: (Wednesday 18MAR09 10.20 RST) In "AaronK's" latest comment, full of the usual pseudo-scientific linguistic/racial mumbo-jumbo, he comments: I am not the one making racial categories, whereas he stated earlier that I exhibit 'racist' views and in an earlier comment made this remark: Just because you're Scottish does not mean you are not hostile and yes racist towards Gaels and Gaelic, presumably because he considers use of the word 'Gael' to be a racial category. His comment that he is not the one making racial categories is demonstrably not in accordance with the facts.
3rd UPDATE: (Wednesday 18MAR09 10.30 RST) In "AaronK's" latest comment (he really is obsessed!) - I always tell my family and friends that I'd love to see some of the Gael-haters attempt to get away with some of their comments in North America. This idiocy about Gael-haters is complete rubbish, unless you want me to agree that I hated the grandfather that I loved (the Scottish one) or the other grandfather that I loved (the Irish one). Ah yes, gun-toting North America - perhaps that kind of reaction to 'dissident viewpoints' goes in the US and even in western Canada, but I doubt if it would have much traction in Ottawa at federal level, from what I know of Canadian politcs. Most amusing - you seem to have no sense of irony "AaronK" - lol.
4th UPDATE: (Wednesday 18MAR09 10.45 RST)Did I use the word 'obsessed' in relation to "AaronK"? Well, all I'll do now is simply quote his latest comment in full - it's a real yawn-fest - it's like reading some obsessive tract on matters that only a few individuals have the remotest interest in. As for why the people who matter, those who actually live in Scotland, should have the remotest interest in what an anachronistic sect has to say about politics here, it's a mystery to me: No Bill, wrong again. Scottish Anglo society is the one that developed the idea that Gaels are a separate and inferior racial group. You are the one engaging in mumbo jumbo. You have merely assumed the attitudes of the culture you were raised in vis-a-vis Gaels, and the idea that they are an inferior group. In the historical context this has referred to more than just language, but to the very people themselves. The comments that constantly emerge from the Gael-hating community in Scotland is inextricably linked to this ideology. The Irish (South and North) had enough of that partcular kind of interference in their internal affairs from North American IRA-supporters and funders, until the events of 11 September 2001 awakened them to the duplicity (or actually the politically disastrous consequences for them domestically in the US of continuing support for a terrorist organisation) of their historic analyses in relation to their ancestral homeland.
I have decided I have been tolerant long enough - any further comment on this blog article will be deleted.
PS/ I have so far had to delete a further 6 or 7 comments from "AaronK"; I will continue doing so until he gets bored and stops posting his bile here. Luckily we will soon reach the 2-week stage when Blogger automatically asks for blog-owner approval before permitting comments to appear, even in blogs like mine which do not require moderation for recent post comments. PPS/ I am getting fed up of having to delete "AaronK's" increasingly-hysterical comments, so I have altered the default settings for commenting in this blog by reducing the period when unmoderated comments are permitted to appear without my prior approval. PPPS/ I notice that "AaronK" is in the process of deleting many/all of his own comments, which results in the message "Removed by the comment author" appearing where the comment was. I am now deleteing that remaining reference so comments HE has deleted will appear never to have existed in my blog; however, I maintain an offline record of ALL his comments for archival purposes. PPPPS/ "AaronK" seems now to have finished his work of deleting most if not all of his comments, but I plan (when I get a moment) to repost them all, including my own comments interspersed with his, in a new blog article so that he cannot hide from the hysterical tone of all, and the threatening nature of some, of his comments, not to mention the whining "why is the world so cruel to me" tone of one or two of them. (Note added on Wednesday 18MAR09 at 18.37 RST - You can now read that later blog article here.)
NB/ I have just come across an article on this topic in Graisg's (of the Gurn from Nurn blog) in his blog dealing with Gaelic language issues. Obviously Graisg takes a somewhat different view of the issue of bi-lingual roadsigns than I do, but in actual fact there is not so much difference in our views as one might suppose. In fact I have absolutely no 'objection' to having bilingual road signs in Highland Region (or elsewhere in Scotland for that matter, if people want them), however I would like the majority language to be given at least equal prominence on such roadsigns; it is very noticeable that in all the photographs in Graisg's article, the languages used all have very equal prominence, or in a few cases the majority language has greater prominence. The same holds true in Spain where bilingual roadsigns are often used in specific areas, but great care seems to have been taken to ensure that all languages used are given equal prominence.
Efforts by the [self-]important Gaelic Committee on Highland Council to spread the use of bilingual Gaelic-English road signs on trunk routes into and out of the area are being called into question, at long last, by evidence (so far anecdotal) that they impede driver understanding of the directions being given and may lead to accidents. Before ploughing on with installing more of these bilingual signs into and throughout the region, studies are being called for by Stewart Stevenson, Scottish transport minister, to determine what problems, if any, can be quantified.
I tried to make the last part of the previous paragraph as 'neutral' as possible, but let me be clear - I consider some of the bilingual Gaelic-English signs a positive menace and have on occasions 'whizzed' past an example of these signs at 50 or 60 MPH in my car and questionned whether I was on the correct road, mostly roads with which I am perfectly familiar. The problem is that the Gaelic version appears above the English version in the same [or larger?) size of typeface and in a brighter and more prominent colour, which possibly only makes it appear bigger.
Unfortunately Highland Council's Gaelic committee chairman, Hamish Fraser, has 'form' on this issue, receiving criticism from a Caithness councillor as long as three years ago for arrogantly riding roughshod over criticism of the road-sign language policy he advocates.
(Other articles I have written about Gaelic language issues may be found here and here, both written during 2005 when a Gaelic Language Bill was being debated by the Scottish Parliament.)
UPDATE: (Wednesday 18MAR09 09.30 RST) Very interesting comments to this article; commenters have flung the term 'racist' in my direction - specifically commenter 2 ("Mac 'ic Iain") and commenter 4 and 6 (both by "AaronK"). Whilst I dispute the use of the term 'racist' in this context in relation to the opinions I have expressed (perhaps a 'linguistic imperialist' might be a better term to use as although that is not true either at least it bears some relation to the matters under discussion), I decided to do a little research to try and identify who these two for all intents and purposes 'anonymous' commenters are.
"AaronK" seems to be in Calgary, Alberta (Canada) and using a Shaw Communications Inc internet connection, with IP 96.49.138.145.
"Mac 'ic Iain" seems also to be in Calgary, Alberta (Canada) and using a server at "Calgary Roman Catholic School" as the internet connection, with IP 139.142.154.129.
Interestingly, a couple of moments before the timestamp of "AaronK's" first comment (comment 4) there was a visit from another western Canadian origin based on searches involving this blog article seemingly from Richmond, British Columbia (Canada), also using a Shaw Communications Inc internet connection, with IP 24.78.150.173.
What seems clear, therefore, is that I have offended one or perhaps two "Gaels" in western Canada. Tough! I do wonder if the offence taken may have causes in addition to the purported 'racism' with which I am charged, given that I am gay and that one of the commenters, at least, seems either to teach at or attend the "Calgary Roman Catholic School"; I will fling around a term of my own - the Catholic Church is not known as tolerant in its attitudes towards human sexuality and I believe it is institutionally 'homophobic' and has historically, in many different countries, connived at covering up the sexual misdemeanors of priests in its service involving child molestation. The very recent comments of the Pontiff in relation to homosexuality highlight just what a sick organisation the Roman Catholic Church is; it is not alone as a religious organisation in having 'weird' views about human sexuality, of course. I consider myself an atheist, although my family background is mixed Protestant (Scottish) and Catholic (Republic of Ireland).
Finally, I have observed in my site visit statistics that this article has been viewed both by people in Nairn (where I have my Scottish home) and by people visiting from the Scottish Parliament and from Scottish Media Group, none of which have resulted in the hysterical reactions, or any reaction, of my correspondents from Calgary, Alberta (Canada). I think that factor is quite telling.
2nd UPDATE: (Wednesday 18MAR09 10.20 RST) In "AaronK's" latest comment, full of the usual pseudo-scientific linguistic/racial mumbo-jumbo, he comments: I am not the one making racial categories, whereas he stated earlier that I exhibit 'racist' views and in an earlier comment made this remark: Just because you're Scottish does not mean you are not hostile and yes racist towards Gaels and Gaelic, presumably because he considers use of the word 'Gael' to be a racial category. His comment that he is not the one making racial categories is demonstrably not in accordance with the facts.
3rd UPDATE: (Wednesday 18MAR09 10.30 RST) In "AaronK's" latest comment (he really is obsessed!) - I always tell my family and friends that I'd love to see some of the Gael-haters attempt to get away with some of their comments in North America. This idiocy about Gael-haters is complete rubbish, unless you want me to agree that I hated the grandfather that I loved (the Scottish one) or the other grandfather that I loved (the Irish one). Ah yes, gun-toting North America - perhaps that kind of reaction to 'dissident viewpoints' goes in the US and even in western Canada, but I doubt if it would have much traction in Ottawa at federal level, from what I know of Canadian politcs. Most amusing - you seem to have no sense of irony "AaronK" - lol.
4th UPDATE: (Wednesday 18MAR09 10.45 RST)Did I use the word 'obsessed' in relation to "AaronK"? Well, all I'll do now is simply quote his latest comment in full - it's a real yawn-fest - it's like reading some obsessive tract on matters that only a few individuals have the remotest interest in. As for why the people who matter, those who actually live in Scotland, should have the remotest interest in what an anachronistic sect has to say about politics here, it's a mystery to me: No Bill, wrong again. Scottish Anglo society is the one that developed the idea that Gaels are a separate and inferior racial group. You are the one engaging in mumbo jumbo. You have merely assumed the attitudes of the culture you were raised in vis-a-vis Gaels, and the idea that they are an inferior group. In the historical context this has referred to more than just language, but to the very people themselves. The comments that constantly emerge from the Gael-hating community in Scotland is inextricably linked to this ideology. The Irish (South and North) had enough of that partcular kind of interference in their internal affairs from North American IRA-supporters and funders, until the events of 11 September 2001 awakened them to the duplicity (or actually the politically disastrous consequences for them domestically in the US of continuing support for a terrorist organisation) of their historic analyses in relation to their ancestral homeland.
I have decided I have been tolerant long enough - any further comment on this blog article will be deleted.
PS/ I have so far had to delete a further 6 or 7 comments from "AaronK"; I will continue doing so until he gets bored and stops posting his bile here. Luckily we will soon reach the 2-week stage when Blogger automatically asks for blog-owner approval before permitting comments to appear, even in blogs like mine which do not require moderation for recent post comments. PPS/ I am getting fed up of having to delete "AaronK's" increasingly-hysterical comments, so I have altered the default settings for commenting in this blog by reducing the period when unmoderated comments are permitted to appear without my prior approval. PPPS/ I notice that "AaronK" is in the process of deleting many/all of his own comments, which results in the message "Removed by the comment author" appearing where the comment was. I am now deleteing that remaining reference so comments HE has deleted will appear never to have existed in my blog; however, I maintain an offline record of ALL his comments for archival purposes. PPPPS/ "AaronK" seems now to have finished his work of deleting most if not all of his comments, but I plan (when I get a moment) to repost them all, including my own comments interspersed with his, in a new blog article so that he cannot hide from the hysterical tone of all, and the threatening nature of some, of his comments, not to mention the whining "why is the world so cruel to me" tone of one or two of them. (Note added on Wednesday 18MAR09 at 18.37 RST - You can now read that later blog article here.)
NB/ I have just come across an article on this topic in Graisg's (of the Gurn from Nurn blog) in his blog dealing with Gaelic language issues. Obviously Graisg takes a somewhat different view of the issue of bi-lingual roadsigns than I do, but in actual fact there is not so much difference in our views as one might suppose. In fact I have absolutely no 'objection' to having bilingual road signs in Highland Region (or elsewhere in Scotland for that matter, if people want them), however I would like the majority language to be given at least equal prominence on such roadsigns; it is very noticeable that in all the photographs in Graisg's article, the languages used all have very equal prominence, or in a few cases the majority language has greater prominence. The same holds true in Spain where bilingual roadsigns are often used in specific areas, but great care seems to have been taken to ensure that all languages used are given equal prominence.
Thursday, 29 January 2009
English as she is spoke (possibly a new series?)
Lots of things fascinate me about the English language, both as spoken in Britain and in its many variants throughout the world, whether when spoken by people for whom it is a first language or those (much more numerous) people for whom it is a second language or purely a business language. So many things have flitted through my mind on this subject over the years; most times I simply note them mentally and pass on. However, a few stick in the mind and that's what this post is about (one at a time though - a whole list in one go might become tiresome); maybe I'll write later posts with other 'gems' or curiosities I have noticed.
OK, to kick this off: some words strike me as faintly ridiculous or incongruous, specially when compared with other words. Example 1:
- 'laughter' is pronounced LAFFTER and generally denotes something happy, joyous even;
- precede with the four letters 'mans', however, and the reamining eight letters are pronounced completely differently - MAN-SLOTTER - and take on a wholly different class of meaning. The same change in pronunciation occurs when the single letter 's' precedes the eight letters.
Whenever I /read/hear/see a report of a murder case in which the crime is classified as 'manslaughter', my usual reaction is to say to myself an ironic MANS-LAFFTER. To say so out loud, however, would lay me open to the charge of crass insensitivity when discussing what is usually a tragic occurrence.
So, why the change in pronunciation? Usually when I have posed such questions before the only response available has been 'just because' or similar. Does anyone have anything more sapient to say on the matter?
OK, to kick this off: some words strike me as faintly ridiculous or incongruous, specially when compared with other words. Example 1:
- 'laughter' is pronounced LAFFTER and generally denotes something happy, joyous even;
- precede with the four letters 'mans', however, and the reamining eight letters are pronounced completely differently - MAN-SLOTTER - and take on a wholly different class of meaning. The same change in pronunciation occurs when the single letter 's' precedes the eight letters.
Whenever I /read/hear/see a report of a murder case in which the crime is classified as 'manslaughter', my usual reaction is to say to myself an ironic MANS-LAFFTER. To say so out loud, however, would lay me open to the charge of crass insensitivity when discussing what is usually a tragic occurrence.
So, why the change in pronunciation? Usually when I have posed such questions before the only response available has been 'just because' or similar. Does anyone have anything more sapient to say on the matter?
Monday, 18 February 2008
English language teaching in Spain - and election fever
With the Spanish national elections coming up next month, increasingly optimistic proposals are being made by both of the two main political parties, the governing Socialists and the opposition Popular Party. Today President (i.e. Prime Minister) Zapatero has come up with a startling idea - basically that young Spaniards need to be able to use English both at a social and professional level to survive in the modern world. And to try and achieve that objective he is proposing that 12,000 part-time native English teachers be hired along with 8,000 English language assistants. The aim is, if he is re-elected, for 15 per cent of all school activity to be conducted in English by the end of the next government's mandate and for all school-leavers to be able to function socially and professionally in English. He also wants to quadruple the numbers of Spanish schoolchildren undertaking exchange visits of upto a month to 200,000 a year - presumably the favoured destinations will be the UK or Ireland (or perhaps non-EU English-speaking nations further afield) if improving English-language skills is part of the objective?
Can I also suggest something completely tongue in cheek? Would it not be a good idea simply to turn over the government of Spain to Gibraltar - in one move they could regain a sacred piece of what they believe to be Spanish territory (and Zapatero could go down in history as a national hero) and if Gibraltarians controlled the levers of power in Spain then they might not object quite so vociferously to being annexed. It shouldn't take readers too long to realise that the last sentence was written under the influence of [at least] two glasses of rather good port.
What incentive will I have to try and improve my Spanish if this policy is taken forward?
PS/ I read this report yesterday in the Spanish-language press, but the English translation in the linked article may be more accessible to most readers.
Can I also suggest something completely tongue in cheek? Would it not be a good idea simply to turn over the government of Spain to Gibraltar - in one move they could regain a sacred piece of what they believe to be Spanish territory (and Zapatero could go down in history as a national hero) and if Gibraltarians controlled the levers of power in Spain then they might not object quite so vociferously to being annexed. It shouldn't take readers too long to realise that the last sentence was written under the influence of [at least] two glasses of rather good port.
What incentive will I have to try and improve my Spanish if this policy is taken forward?
PS/ I read this report yesterday in the Spanish-language press, but the English translation in the linked article may be more accessible to most readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)