A chara, – It is regrettable that Barry Walsh (March 6th) uses the recent debate about the Irish-language text of the proposed constitutional referendum on marriage to have a go at the position of Irish itself as enshrined in our Constitution.
The status given to Irish as the national language of Ireland goes back to the foundation of the State and was set out in article 14 of the constitution of the Free State (1922). Article eight of the 1937 Constitution continued this recognition.
While both constitutions gave recognition to Irish and English as the two official languages of the State, Irish was accorded the additional status of our national language. It was seen, rightly in my view, as the language which belonged uniquely to this country. While it is spoken as a first language by a relatively small number of citizens, opinion polls and official census returns show that Irish still commands a wide level of public support.
In practice, having two language versions of our Constitution can help to define meaning by clarifying what may be ambiguous in one or other language.
A good example of this is mentioned by Mr Walsh himself. The Irish language always uses the future tense when referring to the future, whereas in English the present tense may be used and the future context only implied.
In practice our constitutional lawyers and higher courts have proved themselves well capable of dealing with our dual-language constitution. Rather than bemoan it, we should rejoice in our rich bilingual inheritance and its reflection in our Constitution. – Is mise,
JOHN GLENNON,
Hollywood, Co Wicklow.
A chara, – Contrary to popular belief, the Irish text of the Constitution was not prepared by the Translation Section of the Houses of the Oireachtas, Rannóg an Aistriúcháin, which section was responsible for translating the Acts of the Oireachtas from 1922 onwards. The original draft of the Irish text was in fact made by Mícheál Ó Gríobhtha, a native of Caherea, Liscasey in Co Clare, who, like many others in the region at that time, was brought up bilingually, and selected personally by Éamon de Valera on account of how highly he valued Mícheál’s clear and precise Irish.
While many of the provisions of the 1937 Constitution are identical to provisions of the 1922 constitution, the Irish text of which is an acknowledged direct translation of the English, the corresponding Irish text in the 1937 Constitution differs greatly and the story of the two texts is not as black and white as people would like to think. The truth is that certain sections of the Constitution were drafted in both languages simultaneously, and other sections were first written in Irish and subsequently in English, or vice versa, as circumstances dictated.
In all of the above circumstances, both versions of the Constitution were closely examined and scrutinised from both a linguistic and a legal viewpoint. Éamon de Valera addressed this point during a Dáil debate on June 14th, 1937, stating the following: "I want to tell those who suggest that the Irish was only an afterthought, a mere translation of the English, that the Irish drafting has gone on pari passu almost from the beginning, when the fundamental ideas that were accepted for the Constitution were being put in draft form." – Is mise,
KEVIN HICKEY,
Goatstown,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – I wonder how many of our Supreme Court judges refer to the Irish version in the first instance when setting about interpreting a particular constitutional provision? In cases where there are apparent inconsistencies between the two versions, do they form their own view of how the Irish-language version should be interpreted or do they rely on others with better knowledge of the Irish language to inform them of differing nuances which might arise from the text? How frequently is the Irish language used in the presentation of cases to the Supreme Court and, when this has happened, has the discourse between the court and those presenting the case been in the Irish language?
Perhaps I’m wrong but I suspect that the English language pages of the judges’ copies of the Constitution are much more heavily thumbed the Irish pages. And, of course, when we are voting on a constitutional amendment, I suspect that most of the electorate read the English version of the ballot paper and do not accord the Irish version a second glance.
The Constitution is a practical working document which governs many aspects of all our lives and, it seems to me, is read, interpreted and discussed, almost universally, by both legal practitioners and lay people in the English language. I think this reality should be recognised in our Constitution. – Yours, etc,
JOE AHERN
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.