Lost for (foreign) words at University of Ulster decision

As many of you will know I'm not gifted in languages, not that this doesn't stop me trying to learn some. The one I found easiest out of all the ones I have settled down to try and learn was Spanish. However, I do not that I am at a comparative disadvantage to those who do possess language skills. This is something that really struck home when I worked in a multi-lingual call centre environment, where people were able to take calls fluently in their second, third or even fourth languages.

Therefore the news that the University of Ulster has deemed it wise that as part of their cuts will include the modern language school at the Coleraine campus seems to me the most backward and ill-thought out of the consequences of their reduced budget.

We are constantly hearing that Northern Ireland needs to reach out for inward investment. But by reducing the number of spaces for modern language courses in Northern Ireland, leaving only the Queen's language school offering degrees, will lead to a skills exodus as Northern Ireland's language scholars will go elsewhere to either do a straight language course or one combined with business or other courses. Most of these students of course will never return, or maybe not return straight away meaning that where our business opportunity need people with language skills to bring in that foreign investment we will be falling behind.

The economic knock back of losing the language school at Coleraine is something that will impact on Northern Ireland. So while the current intake of language students there will be the last before the school is wound down we need action to make Northern Ireland remain attractive to investors from wherever utilising all the skills, especially those of language that we are required to be active in some of those markets where Spanish, German, French, Chinese or whatever are advantageous.

If not Trojan Horse is equality an Achilles Heel? @mikenesbittni

The issue of equality is certainly high on the political agenda here in Northern Ireland recently. Though scarily it seems that far too many with responsibility for legislation seem not to realise it or understand how to exercise it and show it to all.

Last night there may well have been the calmest, non-shouting all party debate on BBC's The View I can recall for some time. But of course as ever there were issues in in and some of them I raised on Twitter and Facebook. Now when three of the panellists are known to you and haven't blocked you some of this involves linking to them directly, one such was Mike Nesbitt the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. So I posted on Facebook.

Now for those of you not used to having bilingual discussions on your TV during political discussions let me explain something. Normally when you say something in Irish here the next phrase is the translation. Therefore it struck me that Mike Nesbitt was saying that "Tiocfaidh ár lá" is actually the Irish for "Brits out" which of course I know actually is "Our day will come". It is a rallying cry just like "Stand Up for the Ulster Men" is at Ravenhill in the Rugby, but in the heat of recent discussions over language those who, unlike myself, have no elementary understanding of the Irish language mlattight think from this that is what Mike meant.

Mike said that I hadn't heard him implying not just last night but on other days when he retold the same anecdote that he was implying that. So I rewatched the item and relistened to it on The Nolan Show and here is the verbatim of what he said on The View last night:

"And you get two Gerry Adamses; sometimes on the same night. I was in New York once, he was in a black tie in the Plaza in the Park at a $500 a plate dinner and that speech was about reaching out a hand to our unionist brethren. An hour later he was in Celtic Park in the Bronx, in jeans and an Arran sweater and his first words were, 'Tiocfaidh ár lá, Brits out'."

So it is not 100% clear, even to a trained ear that Mike wasn't inferring that the latter was not the meaning of the former. I've heard him use this anecdote a number of times since the incident in Enniskillen involving Gerry Adams. That was the speech where Adams say that equality was the Trojan Horse by which he sought to break them bastards.

So out of this Mike has also been saying that Equality is the bedrock of our society. So as he had been good enough to respond to my initial comment I decided to immediately replay with a follow up around the subject.

"Also Mike while I have you here. If equality is such a bedrock in our society how come you are keeping me less equal than if I lived anywhere else in the UK because of my sexual orientation by your constant votes against marriage equality?"

I think I've been gracious and not posted this immediately though I did remind him through another comment on Facebook and a couple of Tweets during the day today that he had yet to respond. However, I do go on to say that he is subject to that all to common disease amongst unionist politicians when they talk about equality and then are asked a question about such blatant inequality with the United Kingdom. That disease is mutism.

I notice that Mike has had enough time today to pay tribute to Jack Kyle, post pictures of Christmas lights in Newtownards and support Woman's Aid in the past 10 hours. But somehow does not and did not have the time to respond to my question after he came to my Facebook comment to defend himself on one aspect.

Is this because he is incapable of defending himself on such a matter of inequality and he knows it. Is it therefore true that while Trojan Horse is probably the wrong word for it that equality surely is the Achilles heel of unionism?

If he wants to answer either here, or via Facebook I will happily add his response.

So if Homophohia can't be a word...

So the former UKIP donor Demetri Marchessini took out a full page ad in The Telegraph which included the argument:

Firstly, it has already been repeatedly explained to her [Libby Purvis], that there is no such word as "homophobic". It cannot be found in any dictionary, nor does it have any meaning. One can tell that it is a phoney word, (invented by the homosexual lobby) because the first half of the word "homo" has a Latin root, while the second half "phobia" has a Greek root. It is like having a word that is half Spanish and half Croation. Anyone who uses it is uneducated.

Homophobia was first used in 1971 by George Weinberg in Society and the Healthy Homosexual. For the record as to education Weinberg has a Masters in English before doing advanced training in Mathematical statistics. So hardly an uneducated man.

Mr Marchessini is also ignoring the fact that while "homo"actually has a Greek root, as does "phobia". However, "sexus" the root of sexuality is actually Latin. So therefore homophobia is a combination of two Greek roots and homosexuality is actually a hybrid. Homosexual was actually first used in English in 1892, in  C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis from  the German useage of homosexual, homosexuale by 1880, in Gustav Jäger. 

So clearly the word automobile derived in French in 1895 from the Greek "autos" and the Latin "mobilis" is a made up word by the French car industry. So clearly the is a dysfunction in language that goes far beyong Mr Marchessini uneducated comments.

Dysfunction itself comes from the Greek "dys" and the Latin "functio"first used in 1916.

But before Mr Marchessini gets too het up about the bigamous use of language to come up with new words he should be aware that bigamy is another hybrid from a late Latin mix of "bi" being their own word for double and "gamous" the Greek word "gamos" meaning married. The Greeks themselves used the word digamos for twice married.

And before he goes unto television to show his stupidity he should be aware that by his logic that doesn't exist. Yes you guessed it the word first used in 1907 comes from the Greek "tele" far and the Latin "visio" seeing. Just as long as he doesn't have to rely on the Chinese to provide his satellites to watch it as their people in space are Taikonauts from the Chinese "taikong" for space and the Greek "nautes" for sailor.

However, he will be glad to know that he cannot be a Europhobe as that comes from the Latin "Europa" and the Greek "phobos". Nor for that matter can UKIP truly believe in creating a monoculture, yeah you guessed it "monos" Greek and "cultura" Latin.

These are just a few examples but he can go to the back of the class for now, as this argument is false for a start and based on an incorrect premise and language has always borrowed words and put them together as those that speak see fit.

Stonewall try and fail to be inclusive

Today Stonewall launch their campaign to tackle homophobia in work. There are four poster designs, though by looking at their website you would think that there are only three. Two are all male with the headline "One is Gay". There is a lesbian version but this morning it took many LGBT activists some time to locate it.


There is one woman that Stonewall are happy to promote on their posters about this campaign. She is a police officer who appears with a male colleague under the title "One is bisexual". So the women may actually be the straight one on that poster, after all we are assuming that the other one is, unless she is a lesbian and her male colleague is the bisexual.

However, what many campaigners including myself picked up on the bisexual poster is that apart from the title you would not know that Britain's "self-proclaimed" leader in the LGB rights

The text underneath all four designs is the same.

At Stonewall we've campaigned for 25 years for equality. We've had major successes with legaslising same-sex marriage, repealing section 28 and lifting the ban on gay people serving in the military. But 99% of young gay people still regularly hear homophobic language in school, 100 homophobic hate crimes are reported to the police every week and 2.4 million people have witnessed homophobic bullying at work in the past 5 years.

Lots done. Lots to do.

Yes even when  Stonewall try and be inclusive in their poster campaign they fail within the text. They focus only on the G, hide away the L, fail to recognise the different problems faced by the B, and as for the T as usual with Stonewall they don't get a look in.

They are also taking credit for same-sex marriage, which they were opposed to in 2010 even as the Liberal Democrats passed as Federal Policy in support of it.

There are many harping away about how fantastic this campaign is. Sadly it is more fan'as'ic and fails from its outset to be a diversity inclusive at it appears on a quick scan of the posters.

While we do need to end homophobic bullying, and biphobic, we also need to address transphobic. The Stonewall riots saw the transexuals stand alongside the Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals in countering the police brutality. But Stonewall UK (itself a misnomer due its lack of action on Northern Ireland) fail to live up to the name it bears by constantly getting the full range of those who made at stand at the Stonewall Inn in New York's Greenwich Village.

Looks like those of us who get the full spectrum of sexuality and identity will once again had to pick up the pieces that the UK most high profile organisation that many few as standing for LGBT rights fails to pick up and run with.

Looking at the OED in response to Cllr Brian Wilson

In this weeks Spectator (pictured) there is a report of the debate on Equal Marriage. One of the Councillors Brian Wilson the independent for Bangor West is reported to have said:

"the definition of marriage was not a matter for the council but for the compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary."

Now the OED is a fluid document and definitions there do get redefined all the time; marriage is one such word actually.

In older editions it was defined as:

marriage, n.
1a the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:

But by 1989 in the (second edition) there is a subtle but important change.

marriage, n.
1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between married persons; spousehood, wedlock.

Note that the 'and' becomes an 'or' it is also extended beyond a formal union to include common-law husbands and wife within the wider definition as a result. But the or is important and does not imply that there is one of each gender required any more.

We move along to 2007 and we have a further revision:

marriage, n.

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony. The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.

Apart from the final part of the main definition which is quite clear, there is another subtlety. The relation between married persons becomes the relation between persons married to each other. At this stage of course some countries and US States had already introduced same-sex marriage, therefore there is subliminal recognition of these unions.

Elsewhere in the same volume is another definition.

gay marriage n. a relationship or bond between partners of the same sex which is likened to that between a married man and woman; (in later use chiefly) a formal marriage bond contracted between two people of the same sex, often conferring legal rights; (also) the action of entering into such a relationship; the condition of marriage between partners of the same sex.

 But the OED are not alone in recent version of the Merriam-Webster's dictionary marriage is defined as:

marriage, noun

 

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

 So the OED and indeed other dictionaries have already redefined marriage. Why then did Brian Wilson not vote for the OED definition of marriage but instead called the motion on Monday a political stunt?

PS Of course governing by dictionary definition is almost as bad as governing by wikiopedia definition.

David Cameron's remark 24 hours on in Northern Ireland

Growing up in Northern Ireland I was rather blessed by my name. My surname is neither Protestant nor Catholic. Indeed look at historic records for the middle of the 19th Century and in Londonderry/Derry there are an even split of both with the surname.

My given names especially my, controversial to some members on the staunch loyalist side of the family, middle name meant that I could be known by either to fit in with side depending who I was with and where I was.

As some of you know I also have both a British and Irish passport.

Therefore bizarrely I have never felt threatened by my community identity passed on where I went to church, nor where my family was from. Indeed I called Northern Ireland's second city by whatever name was more appropriate to the people I was with as another tool of camouflage.

In the last 24 hours when I have ventured out I have done what I always do and pick up snippets of conversations around me as I sit and drink coffee, or go shopping. In that time here in relatively affluent and educated Bangor in Northern Ireland I have people interchanging gay and paedophile more than I have heard in political debate here even from the DUP in recent years. In fact I don't think I heard the common person on the street mention that linkage since my return here over 2 years ago.

All that changed yesterday.

There are snippets of conversation that I pick up on. Of course me being me there are certain key words that spark my ears to hone in. There has been a lot of those snippets in the last 24 hours and it makes me feel uncomfortable.

The thing is of course I don't have a wife to hide behind. My name has appeared in the letters pages defending LGBT rights. Anyone who Googles my name will of course find out just who I am, and probably even quicker than Phillip Schofield's 3 minutes can ascertain my sexual orientation. Here is the worse case of conversation that I overheard earlier today in a local supermarket.

Person A: So David Cameron doesn't want a gay witch hunt.
Person B: Why not? All those gays are at it, no young boy is safe

Now David Cameron warned yesterday against starting a witch hunt. But it appears that in certain people he has started one. One nationally known homophobe tweeted last night in relation to this:

It's time for the majority of gays who are not attracted to children to put their house in order by turning in beasts. 

This after he made what appeared to be unfounded allegations against certain men. He then later added a PS that is also applied to white, heteros as well.

The thing is of course that one individual on a widely watched national television programme in response to a question about paedophiles directly linked it to a certain section of society. Even if one case may well be related to that there are other ongoing investigations that are not, but are also subject to a witch hunt.It may well be that the case he was questioned about fitted the caution he was calling for, but the use of words in the minds of some has reinforced a prejudice that many have worked hard to eradicate. In the space of six short words on a sofa in a studio in London David Cameron managed to rekindle that thought in some, so much so that they feel able to articulate it out loud.

In certain areas of the country homophobia and misunderstanding of the LGBT community is higher than others, none probably more so than here in Northern Ireland. What I have witnessed in the last 24 hours gives me cause for concern.

Is Thatchell speaking with forked tongue regarding Ken?

The Peter Tatchell foundation have issued the following statement on Facebook regarding Ken Livingstone's 'riddled' comment about LGBT Tories. Embolding is mine for the purposes laid out below.

Ken Livingstone is not homophobic. His use of the word 'riddled' has to be judged in context. It was clearly not used with any homophobic intent. All parties have lots of gay, bisexual MPs, as Ken noted. He is right to state that there were many gay MPs in the Tory party, from the backbenches to the cabinet. After Labour’s victory in 1997 many gay Labour MPs came out, while gay Tories remained in the closet, continued to vote against gay equality. Ken is correct to suggest that in the 1980s and 90s the Conservative Party was avowedly anti-gay, while having many gay MPs. Lots of Tories opposed gay equality, despite their own homosexuality. They were hypocrites, homophobes. Ken is right to point this out.

In recent years, the Conservative leadership has embraced gay equality, which is commendable. However, only two weeks ago it was reported that 100 Tory MPs intend to block David Cameron’s plan to end the ban on same-sex marriage. They still oppose gay equality.

However, when Livingstone was Mayor in 2005 he invited outspoken Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London. Thatchell himself called him out as being a hypocrite at the time.

he Mayor justifies hosting Qaradawi on the grounds that he wants a dialogue with Muslims. But why is Ken having a dialogue with a reactionary Muslim leader? Why isn’t he meeting liberal Muslims who believe in human rights? Why does he host a homophobe like Qaradawi while ignoring pleas from the Muslim gay group, Imaan?

Ken has been a long-time ally of the lesbian and gay community. He stood up for our rights long before any other major politician. He deserves our respect and appreciation. But on the issue of Qaradawi, Ken has made a major misjudgement.

In the name of fighting Islamophobia the Mayor is colluding with homophobia. He appears to believe that Muslim rights are more important than queer rights, and that it is acceptable to ally himself with fundamentalists who despise gays and want them killed.

Livingstone would never host Catholic extremists like Opus Dei or right-wing Anglicans from the Christian Institute. Why is he rolling out the red carpet for an Islamist hate-monger like Qaradawi? 

Ken seems willing to sacrifice gay rights if it is politically expedient to do so. Does he want Muslim votes? Is that why he is cosying up to Islamic fundamentalists like Qaradawi and the reactionary Muslim Association of Britain (MAB)?

Note at the end of this BBC article that is was the head of the Conservative group in the London Assembly who said "[Qaradawi] is the type of man Mr Livingstone should, like us, be condemning not cosying up to. It's utterly unacceptable." 


At that point it was the So why then does the Peter Thatchell foundation now back his use of the word, when in the past he has condemned him as willing to sacrifice gay rights for political expediency. Does raising the issue of previous LGBT closeted Conservatives in the run up to an election campaign not count as political expediency.

Does using a word like riddled, which I notice has casued outrage from with LGBT members of all parties (not just the Conservatives), not warrant an apology. The above which is not condemned, but put into context by the Thatchell Foundation. How come formerly it was a major misjudgement and yet not it is something that Thatchell has to jump in to explain. 

Clearly the use of the word was a misjudgement, although the Thatchell Foundation have refused to say that is it. But they are jumping in to defend one candidate, while there are another seven.

It is a political expediency that Livingstone has gone running to the best known LGBT rights campaigner to get him out of this jam following this faux pas of his own making?

Just who is acting like a dictator Archbishop?

One definition of dictatorship is:

Government by a single person or by a junta or other group that is not responsible to the people or their elected representatives.

So when the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, claims that David Cameron is acting like a dictator when he his holding a consultation on equal marriage he seems to have missed the point. Of course this is a junta of 26 Bishops sitting in the House of Lords who are not responsible nor electable by the people. Indeed even in largely elected second chamber there are still suggestions to keep them in place.

What Sentamu has said is:

"I don't think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can't just (change it) overnight, no matter how powerful you are.

"We've seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don't want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way."

Of course if the government is not able to have redefined very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time, women would never have been allowed to vote, nor would the workers. There would not be social care through benefits or the National Health Service. Jews would not have been allowed to sit in Parliament, nor would Parliament be able to do away with male primogeniture for the heirs of future sovereigns as has been agreed by the Commonwealth which is legislation that now been introduced.

The fact that equal marriage is being put out for public consultation also flies in the face of accusations of dictatorship accusations, which can also be defined as "absolute or despotic control or power".  Somehow you know that a depot is not going to put something out to consultation, as that is not absolute power. No a despotic dictator is liable to just make a change or prevent one on his say so, rather like what Sentuma is trying to do through what he says himself.

So just who is acting like a dictator by having only their view and no other view? Eyes toward the See of York perhaps.

Allister hoisted by his own hyopcritical naming petard

Jim Allister really had better be more careful of what he asks for when he wants Northern Ireland to be called "Northern Ireland", and not "the North", "North of Ireland" of "Six Counties", in matters pertaining  to the Northern Irish Assembly.When he said:

"In light of that ruling, I invite you to consider the logical and necessary extension of that approach to references in this house to the state of Northern Ireland so that the proper name - namely that of Northern Ireland - is used on all occasions."

So I thought I'd look at his own record reciprocating that with the Republic of Ireland (Poblacht na hÉireann if referring to its official title in its native tongue). I thought this would be a shared precedent that he would follow and one that the Speaker William Hay MLA might like to consider in making his judgement. After all if Jim is wanting this to happen out of principle and integrity what better place to look that his own experience (see the slogan on his poster pictured).

On his own website I found his own response to the St Andrews Agreement Review of North/South Implementation Bodies and Areas for Co-operation. As there are plenty of references there to the Republic of Ireland and indeed Northern Ireland there.

Would you be surprised to learn that Mr Allister isn't consistent (I'll highlight references to the Republic in Green, Northern Ireland in Red and misnaming of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or Great Britain in Blue:

Page 10 yet another unwelcome layer of Southern interference in the affairs of this part of the United Kingdom

Page 15 There is provision in the South for similar arrangements in relation to the Oireachtas 

Page 16 In truth, there is a mutual veto which can be exercised by Nationalists as well as Unionists. And an analysis of Sinn Fein [sic]/IRA controlled ministries shows that what the DUP described as “freelance cooperation” with the Republic continues apace. (editor's note I may be being a bit mischievous here, but surely The Republic is a truncation of The Republic of Ireland just in the same way as The North  is a truncation of Northern Ireland.)

Page 17 However, if Northern Ireland is marketed as a single entity with the Irish Republic obvious
complications arise when a disease arrives in the Irish Republic of which Northern Ireland and Mainland UK are free. (editor's note again mischievous perhaps but the official name is The Republic of Ireland not The Irish Republic.)

Ibid Why did the Republic get off so lightly? (see also pages 18, 19 and 20 on numerous occasions)

Ibid Like her party college [sic] Ms Gildernew, Caitríona Ruane has displayed an enthusiasm for all things south of the border 

• In December 2007 Ms Ruane and her southern counterpart Cornor [sic] Lenihan 

Page 19 I would suggest that the bias of the DRD minister* – a convicted terrorist who is working to see the destruction of Northern Ireland's place in the Union** – provides an answer. 32 It suites the Irish Republican agenda to see to it that Northern Ireland’s transport links with the South are maintained and kept in pristine condition while those with GB mainland are neglected.

Note I've ignored all the mentions of North/South as this was the title of the paper that he was referring to.

So so get this right on all count.

Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone = Northern Ireland, Tuaisceart Éireann or Norlin Airlann
The remaining 26 counties on this island = The Republic of Ireland or Poblacht na hÉireann
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales = The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
England, Scotland and Wales = Britain
Mainland England, Scotland and Wales (without any islands) = Great Britain (being the largest of the British Isles)

Although also to be fair shouldn't we be calling Mr Allister by his proper name of James?
 
* I elongated this quote to illustrate the point which Mr Allister got pulled up on in nothing new.
** I'm assuming here he means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but is using a truncation for his own devices.

An Apple a Day Doesn't Keep the Pedant Away

Sorry but I'm going to be a little pedantic this morning. In the print version of this story in the Grauniad there is a picture similar to the above but from a different angle. However, it is labelled.

Apple's 300th store in Covent Garden will be a blend of modern and the
traditional, says Ron Johnson, senior vice-president for retail.

Now there are a couple of missing commas in the above, which makes the reading of the above say that Apple have just open another store to add to 299 others in the Covent Garden area of London. Now I know Starbucks and Costa Coffee go for a saturation policy but not even I reckon there is enough demand for iPhones and iPads etc for 300 stores not that far away from where I used to work in retail.

The above should of course read:

Apple's 300th store, in Covent Garden, will be a blend of modern and the
traditional, says Ron Johnson, senior vice-president for retail.

The in Covent Garden is a superfluous clause and the sentence reads fine without it, indeed the sentence without tells us that this the Apple's 300th store worldwide which is the correct reading. The additional three words only provide geographical information are not required for the sentence.

On a positive note I do like what Apple have done with the place looking at the two angles I have seen of the premises before it opens tomorrow.

You know you're from Belfast....

.....when.

Courtesy of the Belfast Telegraph.

Thankfully being from the burbs I haven't done or know all of these.

La Lingua Franca pour Fiona

The Scottish Education Minister Fiona Hyslop has been accused of letting down Scotland's future. It was announced that one in five schools no longer offer German at Higher Level and one in then fail to provide students an option for higher French. 'Scotland the Brave' is failing to educate to take our place linguistically in a modern Europe.



Le ministre de l'éducation écossais Fiona Hyslop a été accusé de laisser vers le bas futur d'Ecosse. On lui a annoncé qu'un dans cinq écoles n'offrent plus l'Allemand à de plus haut niveau et un dans puis ne fournissent pas des étudiants une option pour un Français plus élevé. 'L'Ecosse le Courageux' n'instruit pas pour prendre notre endroit linguistiquement en Europe moderne.



Der schottische Bildungsminister Fiona Hyslop ist von die Zukunft von Schottland unten lassen beschuldigt worden. Es wurde verkündet, dass ein in fünf Schulen nicht mehr Deutsches an hochgradigem anbieten und eins in dann Kursteilnehmer eine Wahl für höhere Franzosen bereitstellen nicht können. 'Schottland das Tapfere' das erziehen nicht kann, um unser in ein modernes Europa linguistisch stattzufinden.



Regular readers and my SNP rival out here in Linlithgow Ms. Hyslop will probably be glad to hear that I will not continue to write ever paragraph alternatively in my schoolboy French then German. Nor was I going to carry on in my University business Spanish and the smattering of phrases in Italian, Scandinavian language, Dutch or Polish that I’ve assimilated through work in Edinburgh just didn’t cut the mustard*. However, a Government spokesperson yesterday said:

"Modern Languages are key to creating a more successful Scotland. The changes the Scottish Government is bringing in through Curriculum for Excellence reinforce the expectation that schools will offer a modern language by no later than Primary 6 anddeliver relevant language learning."

However, the failure to not sustain that choice of language learning to students at Higher level is startling. Questions most be asked about how a government with aspirations to have be a strong, innovative, independent nation within Scotland seems incapable of standing up for language learning at this level. The above statement is fine in encouraging language skills are available at a young age but fails to promise too maintain a choice in the major languages without potentially changing educational establishment or alternative means.

*Update: It has been pointed out by a work colleague that I omitted Portuguese from the above list of languages. Obrigado. Aceite minha desculpa.

This Langauge is Dead - UNESCO

Not it's not! It's just had a nap.

That was the response from Cornwall and the Isle of Man to the United Nations Atlas of World Languages in Danger which branded both Cornish and Manx Gaelic as extinct, ex-languages, no more, gone to.....

OK you catch my drift.

Cornish may well have been dead in 1777 as a first language bit linguists claim that it is a language in revival over the past 20 years now with about 300 fluent speakers.

Meanwhile on the Isle of Man the language the UN claims died out in in 1974 when Ned Maddrell fell forever silent. However, the island claims there are 600 speakers of the language amongst it 80,000 residents. There is even a Manx language primary school of 50 pupils Bunscoill Gaelgagh.

Unesco admitted that certain languages shown as extinct in its atlas are being actively revitalized, and could once again become "living languages".

However, the label of extinct has angered my fellow Gaels in both regions. Jennifer Kewley-Draskau, author of the handbook Practical Manx said:

"Unesco ought to know better than to declare Manx a dead language.

"There are hundreds of speakers of Manx and while people are able to have productive conversations in the language then it is very much alive and well."

Of Cornish Jenefer Lowe, development manager of the Cornish Language Partnership added:

"Saying Cornish is extinct implies there are no speakers and the language is dead, which it isn't.

"Unesco's study doesn't take into account languages which have growing numbers of speakers and in the past 20 years the revival of Cornish has really gathered momentum.

"There's no category for a language that is revitalised and revived. What they need to do is add a category. It should be recognised that languages do revive and it's a fluid state."

Oh course I never really wanted to be a blogger writing about the extinction or otherwise of Gaelic languages. I always looked the sun on my back, the wind in my hair and the smell of trees. Cause I really wanted to be a lumberjack but that is something completely different.