Talk:British Sign Language

BSL & Gaelic

Many thousands of hearing people also use BSL: more people use BSL than speak Gaelic.

This is very ambiguous. Do the references in this article to "Gaelic" refer to Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic or to both collectively? Irish and Scots Gaelic are commonly treated as distinct languages. Also, does this refer to the number of 'Gaelic' speakers throughout Britain and Ireland as a whole, or only in the United Kingdom? Iota 21:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I personally find it offensive that one language minority try and put down another to pull itself up. The Scottish Gaelic language currently has very little official status, despite years of campaigning. A Bill is going to go through the Scottish parliament in the near future, but if the British Deaf Community believes that the Scottish Gaels are getting it "good", they're very wrong. It's true to say that it gets given a lot of money, but this is not spent well, and far more gets spent on the occupation of Iraq each day, than on the language in two/three years.

For this reason, I removed the comment about "Gaelic" as I don't think it is helpful to either the Gaels or the BSL community.

Anonymous contributor,

Strictly speaking the information on Wikipedia is not intended to be either helpful or unhelpful to any cause. I've put the comment back because i think it contains an interesting fact and is not necessarily intended to put another language down. I wish, however, that whoever put the ambiguous term there would explain what Gaelic is intended to mean in this context so it can be replaced with something more precise. Iota 17:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iota, the statement is certainly not a "fact". It is a commonly held conception by some people, which I have come across elsewhere. Where it originates is not generally known, and I have yet to see reputable statistics to back it up.

Minority language populations are notoriously difficult to calculate, particularly as they can be taken to include great numbers of learners, and the "native speakers" themselves vary in proficiency. Older native speakers of both BSL and forms of Gaelic will even deny being such, due to shame instilled in them from their school days. This is another complication. Also comparing a language which is signed with one that is spoken and written is a case of "apples and oranges". Some people have a knowledge of both -- I'm one of them, and I know others. Where do we fit into that?

Gaelic is sometimes used to refer to the Scottish form alone, which I think is a misleading usage, but is common enough anyway. Even in the case of Scottish Gaelic alone, it is debatable as to whether said statement is actually true.

If Gaelic is taken to include Irish, I think that the figure is almost definitely false, since thousands of people from the Republic live in the UK, many of whom at least have a passing acquaintance with Irish from the school system there. The ambiguity you mention alone is reason enough to remove it until it can be justified.

I definitely think the "fact" was added to the article to argue that BSL is worthy of official status because it has more users than 'Gaelic'. I think BSL should have official status regardless of other minority languages' current position.

p.s. The article also makes no mention of Irish sign language. I don't know how widely used it is in the UK-administered area.

More people use BSL than speak Gaelic.

I've removed the above because its factual accuracy is disputed. Anonymous user, would you consider getting a username so you can sign your messages? It's just that it makes conversation easier. Iota 01:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)