Should we limit translations?
That vast behemoth - the UN, is universally known for its huge army of interpreters, translators and auxiliary support staff, in fact when last counted, there were some 2,000 of them and still rising. The logistics of every meeting of the European Parliament are such that some 60 interpreters are required in order for all possible cross-language permutations to be accommodated.
Now most people, and certainly the UN, would argue that this is a cornerstone of the UN organisation…namely a culture of inclusion. Well, I doubt that anyone would argue with this, after all, who would suggest that Lithuanians or Romanians should not have translators and so be denied an active role in Parliament meetings; but what about minor or secondary languages?
Without seeming to pick on any nation in particular…what about the Republic of Ireland? The two national languages are Gaelic and English. Now Gaelic being listed as the first language is actually something of a nationalistic rather than a practical or day to day feature of Ireland; yes, road signs, stamps, official documents etc are all written in Gaelic first, followed by English, but make no mistake the lingua franca of Ireland is English.
Anyone who has been to Ireland will know that English is spoken everywhere and that you have to really go out of your way to find anywhere where Gaelic is spoken as the first language. But what about Parliament? Yep…conducted in English.
In view of this and with the EU is intending to commission Gaelic translations of its Constitution and other directives, is it really worth the cost and manpower, just to be politically correct?