Nationalism and the Irish Language

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Grudaire

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

To whom? You're speaking English to me...

tbf that's a nothing argument, this conversation is in English, and bannings would be had if anyone replied as Gaeilge, besides, it wouldn't be polite

Herbal Deity

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

For a given value of "impressive".

You're going back, once again, to utility.

If the stats are true, and I would be skeptical as I reckon the teaching of Irish is not up to scratch, especially at second level, then a large amount of people have had a positive academic experience from learning Irish.

Cliste

Cliste wrote: »

Come over to Teach na Gealt to flex the aul Gaeilge muscles.

Nobody will force you to speak the language, but you will be facilitated to use it if you want to

Thanks.. although if I really desired to speak the language I'd speak it to my family rather than english... We have the capability in both languages, but lets face it, we speak english in every other aspect of our lives in Ireland, so why bother switching to Irish? Just for the sake of it? Doesn't seem particularly practical..

Herbal Deity

Herbal Deity wrote: »

For a given value of "impressive".

You're going back, once again, to utility.

If the stats are true, and I would be skeptical as I reckon the teaching of Irish is not up to scratch, especially at second level, then a large amount of people have had a positive academic experience from learning Irish.

I don't really get this whole academic part of things.. what is the point of having Irish from a purely academic point of view? Might as well learn how to sew your "Irish" family name banner..

The Corinthian

Herbal Deity wrote: »

For a given value of "impressive".

In fairness, if those figures are accurate then they reflect badly on the last century of the Irish educational system, with regards to the Irish language - you don't make a subject obligatory, pump sizeable amounts of resources into it and cheer when you find that under 4% then speak it on a daily basis.

Either way, I would not take those figures too seriously because of the issues I have highlighted earlier.

You're going back, once again, to utility.

I think you are confusing this with the question of whether the language itself offers utility. What donegalfella has pointed out is simply a point of utility in terms of resources versus results and I think this is important regardless of your position on the language simply because it points to a failure in how it has been promoted.

This is what frustrates me so much about the "800 years of oppression" brigade; they are so caught up in the historical romanticism of pre-1916 Ireland that they refuse to learn from the mistakes of post-1916 Ireland.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Herbal Deity

The Corinthian wrote: »

In fairness, if those figures are accurate then they reflect badly on the last century of the Irish educational system, with regards to the Irish language - you don't make a subject obligatory, pump sizeable amounts of resources into it and cheer when you find that under 4% then speak it on a daily basis.

Either way, I would not take those figures too seriously because of the issues I have highlighted earlier.

I think you are confusing this with the question of whether the language itself offers utility. What donegalfella has pointed out is simply a point of utility in terms of resources versus results and I think this is important regardless of your position on the language simply because it points to a failure in how it has been promoted.

Fair points I guess.

I think Irish has a justifiable place on the primary school curriculum, but equally I wouldn't oppose less time being spent on it than is currently.

The Corinthian wrote:

This is what frustrates me so much about the "800 years of oppression" brigade; they are so caught up in the historical romanticism of pre-1916 Ireland that they refuse to learn from the mistakes of post-1916 Ireland.

Why must you assume that just because I support the Irish language, that I'm one of the "800 years" brigade?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As I said before, were French or German taught in place of Irish in the same manner in which Irish is taught, you'd see a similar level of proficiency in those languages as you do in Irish now.

I think you also overestimate the benefits of learning French or German.

However, were it proposed that Irish would be replaced by extra maths and science classes, I might be persuadable.

Grudaire

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks.. although if I really desired to speak the language I'd speak it to my family rather than english... We have the capability in both languages, but lets face it, we speak english in every other aspect of our lives in Ireland, so why bother switching to Irish? Just for the sake of it? Doesn't seem particularly practical..

Why not as they say!? And just because you use it in every other aspect of your life doesn't mean everyone does.

Anyway given that the question was about the state support of the Irish language being nationalistic or not I think it's drifted off topic under the weight of bigots from both sides.

If you love the language use one of the Irish language forums more, if you don't, then good for you, searching Irish Language in boards will give you carbon copies of this very argument.

The Corinthian

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Why must you assume that just because I support the Irish language, that I'm one of the "800 years" brigade?

In fairness, I don't think you are. I was speaking more of some of the other posters who have contributed in this thread who appear to be living in some sort of nationalist fantasy.

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

Why not as they say!? And just because you use it in every other aspect of your life doesn't mean everyone does.

The live and let live argument only works if you're not looking for others to pay for your lifestyle choices, I'm afraid.

Grudaire

The Corinthian wrote: »

The live and let live argument only works if you're not looking for others to pay for your lifestyle choices, I'm afraid.

A thiarcais, go luath beidh mé mar aon le na lads aerach ag cosaint mo stíl mhaireachtála

Ní aontaím go faighim íocaíocht as úsáid an teanga, ach aontaím go faigheann neart daoine airgead nach thuileann siad mar gheall ar an teanga. Ceapaim freisin gur fiú airgead a chuir chuig an Gaeilge, ní amháin mar gheall ar náisiúnachas agus bród faoin tír, ach freisin mar ní faigheann an Gaeilge tacaíocht ceart. Fós ní féidir liom déileáil leis an rialtas, nó Roinn ar bith go h-iomlán as Gaeilge. Tá sé ag athrú go mall, ach tá bóthair fada amach romhainn.

Ar aon nós nílim ag iarraidh a thuile am a chur amú anseo, má tá suim agat i plé liom, pioc suas an foclóir ag feicfidh mé thú trasna i dTeach na Gealt!

Jeez, I'll be joining the homosexuals in defending my lifestyle choices at this rate!

I don't agree that I get paid for my use of the language, but I do admit that a lot of people get money they don't deserve because of the language. I believe that it is worth spending money on Irish not only for nationalism, and prode in the country but mainly because Irish doesn't get the support it deserves. You cannot yet deal with the Government/Departments 100% through Irish, things are changing slowely, but there's a long road ahead.

Anyway I don't want to waste any more time here, if you want to discuss it further with me, pick up a dictionary and I'll see you in Teach na Gealt

And before you start complaining (it has happened before to me) this is as direct a translation as I can do, and it's within the rules

metrovelvet

I dont get what all this history has to do with the price of tea in China. As Oscar Wilde said "No man is rich enough to buy back his past." Whatever happened or didn't, the programme isnt working. You have to accept a natural euthenasia for language, cultures, empires. Why spend so much money on it when their are schools that have no toilets?

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

A thiarcais, go luath beidh mé mar aon le na lads aerach ag cosaint mo stíl mhaireachtála

L'ultima volta che ho guardato non devo pagare per i loro stipendi.

Ceapaim freisin gur fiú airgead a chuir chuig an Gaeilge, ní amháin mar gheall ar náisiúnachas agus bród faoin tír, ach freisin mar ní faigheann an Gaeilge tacaíocht ceart.

Quello è un argomento circolare - "ha diritto di aiuto, perché ha diritto di aiuto" - non fa senso.

Ar aon nós nílim ag iarraidh a thuile am a chur amú anseo, má tá suim agat i plé liom, pioc suas an foclóir ag feicfidh mé thú trasna i dTeach na Gealt!

Che hai sprecato tempo qui è poco ma sicuro.

And before you start complaining (it has happened before to me) this is as direct a translation as I can do, and it's within the rules

If the conversation is already in a specific language, then respond to it in the same language. How does it feel when it is done to you?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont get what all this history has to do with the price of tea in China. As Oscar Wilde said "No man is rich enough to buy back his past." Whatever happened or didn't, the programme isnt working. You have to accept a natural euthenasia for language, cultures, empires. Why spend so much money on it when their are schools that have no toilets?

+1. I agree on the history front. So what? Artifically revive a largely dead language just because it was artificially killed off in the first place? Over 100 years ago?

We have a pretty ridiculous situation with this language in Ireland. You couldnt make it up. Imagine France decided back in the day that Basque was their national language(about the same percentage speak it as Irish though its a lot more vital in Basque areas). Spent billions on it's promotion. Insisted certain professions used it or you were barred entry. Insisted many higher educational facilities required it. Changed well known for generations place names into (oft invented) Basque names and made it a requirement all new housing estates names had to be in Basque. Propped up with French tax payers money Basque only media outlets. Insisted that every government missive tax returns etc had both Basque and French. Funded Basque schools and Basque lessons while other subjects and the schools within them suffered. Insisted it meant you were only truly French if you spoke the language. Then insisted the EU made it an official language and all documents had to be translated into it as well as French.

Now imagine you fly to France on holiday. You figure "Right so, I better learn Basque" yet find outside of a tiny area and a tiny minority of speakers, no one has a bloody clue what you're saying. You would think the French utterly daft. At the very least you would be scratching your head. You truly couldn't make it up.

Macha

And then there's the example of Hebrew where a completely dead language was revived very successfully.

Is the problem with the amount of money spent on reviving Irish or the fact that it has been so unsuccessful?

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

And then there's the example of Hebrew where a completely dead language was revived very successfully.

Is the problem with the amount of money spent on reviving Irish or the fact that it has been so unsuccessful?

Oy gavult. Not the Jews again. I was waiting for someone to bring this up.

Wibbs

taconnol wrote: »

And then there's the example of Hebrew where a completely dead language was revived very successfully.

Agreed and a somewhat invented evolved language too. The difference seems to have been the large scale uptake of the language. Its also a slightly different history going on. As well as nationalist notions Israel also faced huge influx of immigrant Jews with a lot of different backgrounds and cultures and languages. It made sense to have a lingua franca when reviving an also "dead" nation and culture. That wasnt the case in Ireland. English was the lingua franca for well over 100 yrs. Plus clearly the immigrants wanted this and spoke the language. It was a case of practicality. Not the case here. 99% of Irish citizens speak one language. It just happens to be english.

Is the problem with the amount of money spent on reviving Irish or the fact that it has been so unsuccessful?

A little from column a and a little from column b. Actually mostly from column b

Macha

Wibbs wrote: »

Agreed and a somewhat invented evolved language too. The difference seems to have been the large scale uptake of the language. Its also a slightly different history going on. As well as nationalist notions Israel also faced huge influx of immigrant Jews with a lot of different backgrounds and cultures and languages. It made sense to have a lingua franca when reviving an also "dead" nation and culture. That wasnt the case in Ireland. English was the lingua franca for well over 100 yrs. Plus clearly the immigrants wanted this and spoke the language. It was a case of practicality. Not the case here. 99% of Irish citizens speak one language. It just happens to be english.

Very true. There was a totally different mentality around the revival of Hebrew.

Wibbs wrote: »

A little from column a and a little from column b. Actually mostly from column b

Hah, I agree. I certainly can't argue that it has been money well spent.

I speak a few European languages and wanted to love Irish but it was just taught so badly. I'm learning it by myself now but disappointingly, the best course book I have found is actually from the United States.

metrovelvet

Hebrew is attached to a religion, much like Latin was, so it is not tied to a land boundary. Jews all around the world learn Hebrew, like Catholics around the world once did.

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

Hebrew is attached to a religion, much like Latin was, so it is not tied to a land boundary. Jews all around the world learn Hebrew, like Catholics around the world once did.

True, but Hebrew existed for a long time before the revival took place, right?

Do you think that it being linked to the forging out of a new nation provided much of the impetus?

The Corinthian

Hebrew was more successful for a number of reasons, however the principle one is that Jews around the World did not have any other competing common language. For the Irish there is - English.

A better comparable example to Irish is Finnish. As a language this was revived around the same time as Irish, having been systematically suppressed by Swedish (and later Russian) and in decline. They even got their independence around the same time as us. Yet today is is spoken by a majority of Finns.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hebrew was more successful for a number of reasons, however the principle one is that Jews around the World did not have any other competing common language. For the Irish there is - English.

A better comparable example to Irish is Finnish. As a language this was revived around the same time as Irish, having been systematically suppressed by Swedish (and later Russian) and in decline. They even got their independence around the same time as us. Yet today is is spoken by a majority of Finns.

The Finns dont have countless relatives abroad they have to lobby and fundraise from in English. They dont have a diaspora who could not give a toss about the language issue.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

True, but Hebrew existed for a long time before the revival took place, right?

Do you think that it being linked to the forging out of a new nation provided much of the impetus?

Yes, like Wibbs said, they needed a common language, it was born of necessity.

conchubhar1

The Corinthian wrote: »

L'ultima volta che ho guardato non devo pagare per i loro stipendi.

Quello è un argomento circolare - "ha diritto di aiuto, perché ha diritto di aiuto" - non fa senso.

Che hai sprecato tempo qui è poco ma sicuro.

If the conversation is already in a specific language, then respond to it in the same language. How does it feel when it is done to you?

quite good really - 2010 and technology enable people to translate should they wish.

i think cliste made a good point - A thiarcais, go luath beidh mé mar aon le na lads aerach ag cosaint mo stíl mhaireachtála

most peoples points in this thread is just pointing out their limited worldview

Eliot Rosewater

conchubhar1 wrote: »

most peoples points in this thread is just pointing out their limited worldview

Limited, in whose definition? And how are we to know that the person thinking the other has a limited world view doesn't in fact have a limited world view themselves?

Enlarging on what you meant would be handy. Perhaps your Irish extract gave some inkling as to how you feel but if your not going to accommodate me by speaking in English, Im not going to accommodate you by going to bother of translating. English being, as you well know, the operating language of Humanities.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Herbal Deity

As an aside, I felt it was a very bizarre. It seemed to imply that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I don't see how homosexuality is a valid parallel with the current subject matter in the slightest.

eleanoroosevelt

I posted on this thread around the start of it. I came back to it tonight and was pleasantly surprised by all the interesting debate and varied viewpoints expressed since I last posted.
Some posters got very passionate about the issue at hand, this is really fantastic to see. My opinion remains the same as in my earlier post- Irish should'nt be compulsory because people rebel againest things forced upon them, like mass or the catholic church- How many people attend mass today? If you force people to do something enough, they'll grow to loathe it. (as illustrated in this forum)
The way in which Irish was hammered into schoolchildren was the product of a young republic. After years of oppression we got freedom, we struggled to create a free state for ourselves, and so idealistic Ireland was born.
We were a young country newly given independence and like a child growing up, we made mistakes along the way. We succumbed to the oppression of the church, we battered Irish into children. In gaining our freedom we then proceeded to rob freedom from our people. Our nation of roaring nationalists became a nation of supressed mice.
Women were shipped off to hellholes of laundries, a new kind of fake nationalistic pride instilled in the people, and G.A.A. became suddenly a big part of being Irish- the organisation itself had only been established in the early 20th century. We were so used to being oppressed by England we knelt down before our new oppressor- the catholic church.
Compulsory irish was part of this oppression. I love Irish but it shouldn't be forced on those who don't. I feel its an important part of our past, it will flourish if it wasn't taught in such a dreadful way, or made compulsory. If we took Irish out of schools it's popularity would soar because it wouldn't be forced on us.
My main point is how wonderful it is that our nation of once supressed mice is finally speaking out about these issues. The heated debates on this thread, people being unashamedly vocal, this is refreshing to hear from a nation who once condoned clerical abuse and oppression and were silent for so long. Whatever the viewpoints of people on this thread it's just great to see people being vocal about these issues which are so very important for our future! Hopefully this is the Ireland of the future.

The Corinthian

conchubhar1 wrote: »

quite good really - 2010 and technology enable people to translate should they wish.

Good for you. I was wondering how you managed to post in Irish.

Actually speaking a language works better for me.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A very weak argument. Children in the Gaelscoileanna learn English. English books are not currently banned for publication so your comparison is preposterrous and fabricated. After the 1831 education Act children were forbidden to learn or speak Irish in national schools. This has been historically accepted as attemted linguicide.

The 2006 census returns pertaining to the Irish language are here (PDF file), for anyone who cares to peruse them.

In the 2006 census, 1,650,982 people aged three and over claimed the ability to speak Irish. Of those, 452,925 said that they spoke the language only within the educational system.

Asked about the frequency with which they used the language outside the educational system, 53,130 people said they spoke it daily; 96,716 said they spoke it weekly; 578,779 said they spoke it less frequently than weekly; and 411,043 said they never used it.

These figures speak for themselves, I think

As has been pointed out 42% of people can now speak it as opposed to 19% in 1926.
More importantly for revitaling the language the majority of speakers are now in the professional classes. The amount of Irish speaking schools in operation now is unprecedented. This is clear evidence of a sustained resurgence in the language.

Many people will rant because they hate it but you will find that the vast majority of these people hate nationalism (only the Irish variety) and have irrationally associated it with and projected this hatred to the Irish language.

#15

Ah come on, 42% cannot speak Irish.

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

As has been pointed out 42% of people can now speak it as opposed to 19% in 1926.

Even if we ignore the truly unreliable nature of gathering such data through self assessment, a point that has been repeatedly made to you and you continue to ignore, I am taken aback by the completely dishonest manipulation of this data by you.

Over half of those who 'can speak it' either never do or only do so in education (where they are forced to). Of the remainder, only a small fraction claim to speak it on a daily basis, constituting well under 5% of the population.

And claim is an important word here because anyone who may have retained Cúpla Focal from their school days could claim to 'speak' the language. In reality, the Irish spoken by most of us, myself included, sounds more like this.

So laughable are your interpretation, let alone reliability, of your claim that I can equally say I speak Latin, ancient Egyptian and Japanese by the your same logic.

More importantly for revitaling the language the majority of speakers are now in the professional classes. The amount of Irish speaking schools in operation now is unprecedented. This is clear evidence of a sustained resurgence in the language.

Where you deduce that "the majority of speakers are now in the professional classes" is beyond me. Irish is a required exam in some of the professions, such as the Bar, but unless you are one of those rare solicitors or barristers who practice through the language (they do exist as even if small a demand does exist), it is a once off exam you cram for an never think on again. Where did you get this bizarre connection?

Worst of all you see this as "clear evidence of a sustained resurgence in the language" when the only thing that has been clear is that it has been in continuous decline for years. Such a deluded view is actually counter productive to the health of the language as it would lead one to believe that the strategies employed since independence have succeeded. People like you are killing the language.

I dread the day that, without change or reform in how we promote Irish, conversations with someone like you will begin to resemble Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch.

Many people will rant because they hate it but you will find that the vast majority of these people hate nationalism (only the Irish variety) and have irrationally associated it with and projected this hatred to the Irish language

If you can actually resort to something more than simplistic and empty rhetoric, such accusations may be more believable. If you want to find someone who has betrayed his nation or the Irish language, I suspect you will have better luck finding them in a mirror.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

T runner wrote: »

A very weak argument. Children in the Gaelscoileanna learn English. English books are not currently banned for publication so your comparison is preposterrous and fabricated. After the 1831 education Act children were forbidden to learn or speak Irish in national schools. This has been historically accepted as attemted linguicide.

I raised this with you when you brought up the Education Act in the first place, but you chose to ignore it. But prior to the Education Act, there was no free education. So the only people capable of having formal education were those from more wealthy backgrounds or those entering the priesthood. By your own admission, the majority of Irish speakers were from the poor, which meant that they wouldn't have been able to afford any formal education prior to the Act.

In any case, since they were from the poorer classes, they would have been needed to work (being an extra mouth to feed) rather than gain an education that wouldn't have been of particular use to them. Thus its likely that only girls that weren't working in the workhouses would have the free time to attend these new national schools.

So your big objection is based on the prevention of Irish being taught in schools which wouldn't have catered to the majority of Irish speakers in the first place.

No doubt you'll ignore this once more. But the point remains that your objections are rather limited in the understanding of the era, and the real life options of the people living through it. I find that this is common in people who accuse of British intent to destroy the language. Simply put, these arguments fail to take note of the actual lifestyles of the very people they're talking about.

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

A very weak argument. Children in the Gaelscoileanna learn English. English books are not currently banned for publication so your comparison is preposterrous and fabricated. After the 1831 education Act children were forbidden to learn or speak Irish in national schools. This has been historically accepted as attemted linguicide.

OK lets accept this then. So what? Its not the first nor will it be the last time a language has died off for political and economic reasons. It dodnt only happen here. It's happened in damn near every country you can mention. How many Native Americans speak their ancestral language? Especially in South America. Regretable, maybe. A fact, certainly.

As has been pointed out 42% of people can now speak it as opposed to 19% in 1926.

As has been pointed out to you that is utter tosh. Nearly half? I know and have known a lot of people in my life all over this country. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many I have met who are fluent. I have never heard the language "in the wild" and given I have fished in many Gaeltacht areas, that is surprising. I have heard it in Dublin, though again mostly it was the new pidgin Irish(as the one person I know who is native speaker described it).

More importantly for revitaling the language the majority of speakers are now in the professional classes.

Hmmm for someone overly concerned about the engerlish way of doing things, this "class" thing seems to give you a hard on. Better we lost guff that than Irish.

The amount of Irish speaking schools in operation now is unprecedented. This is clear evidence of a sustained resurgence in the language.

There were Irish schools before you know. Quite a few, especially in the 40/50's, including in such jackeen bastions as Dublin. My mother and one of my uncles was schooled in it. Was quite fashionable for a while. There is a resurgence in Irish schools and that's grand, but it remains to be seen if this translates into wider use. Mates of mine send their kids to same(for some dubious reasons too) and yet in the home they still speak english. In one case their parents have a smattering yet again they speak english outside of school. Plus there are many private rugby type schools, yet GAA and soccer are much more popular sports. Dont be too shocked if Irish schools go out of fashion again, or have less of an effect on the language than you may think.

Many people will rant because they hate it but you will find that the vast majority of these people hate nationalism (only the Irish variety) and have irrationally associated it with and projected this hatred to the Irish language.

Utter tripe. While some are like that, I have found more self defined "irish" speakers have a far more backward and exclusionary nationalism and attitude to same.

Wibbs

As another example of language, its censure and it's resurgence. Look more recently at the former soviet bloc countries where Russian was the forced language since WW2(and before). In less than 20 years since the wall fell, those languages are in full use today and Russian is largely a memory.

Why? For a few reasons I think. Primarily because everyone wanted them back. I would say also that the cultural links between the empire country and them were far less than between Ireland and Britain. Many go on about the 800 yrs of oppression stuff and there is a helluva lot in that, but equally there was a helluva lot of cultural connection and exchange too. Your average British man or woman has a lot more in common with your average Irish man or woman, than a Russian has with a Latvian. Certainly more than an Irishman would have with an Italian. On purely shared history and culture.

This does not mean an Englishman wants to be Irish, nor the other way around. Much like a Scot doesnt want to be English. But that tie is there going way way back even before the 800 yrs business. The Scots spoke(and still do in places) Gaelic because of Irish missionaries. Their pictish language long dead. It died for much the same reasons too. Practicality, censure and the fact that speaking Irsh/Gaelic was a serious advantage to the indigenous peoples for educational, political and economic reasons. Sound familiar? Should they blame us and use us as an never ending excuse for the loss of their language?

Hell even their countries name is because we culturally invaded the place(and actually invaded too). Scotti was the Roman name for the Irish as a group and Scotia the name for Ireland. Which makes an even bigger joke of the NI problems as it's Scoti fighting Scoti with nary a Saxon to be found. It could so easily have gone the other way and we could be having this convo on Boards.co.uk about how the Irish influenced us for 1000 yrs and why dont we revive Old English or Norse. The welsh got some invasion from us too. There are Irish Crannogs all over Wales.

Actually the best thing that could happen for these islands and its peoples who have all given so much to the world, is if the notion of "British" went the way of the flesh. Indeed its a relatively recent invention.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even if we ignore the truly unreliable nature of gathering such data through self assessment, a point that has been repeatedly made to you and you continue to ignore, I am taken aback by the completely dishonest manipulation of this data by you.

I presented this statistic exactly as it is presented in the 2006 census. Check your facts before you question my honesty again.

So laughable are your interpretation, let alone reliability, of your claim that I can equally say I speak Latin, ancient Egyptian and Japanese by the your same logic.

Again, I have not interpreted, changed the data from the census in any way. Your claims should be directes at the CSO. Dont think they are interested in cheap boasting either though.

Where you deduce that "the majority of speakers are now in the professional classes" is beyond me. Irish is a requi
red exam in some of the professions, such as the Bar, but unless you are one of those rare solicitors or barristers who practice through the language (they do exist as even if small a demand does exist), it is a once off exam you cram for an never think on again. Where did you get this bizarre connection?

The 2006 Census which breaks down those who are able to speak Irish by socio-economic group. The majority of those come from the professional classes. You may not like it because it puts the language in a better position for revitalisation but thats neither here nor there as far as this discussion goes.

Worst of all you see this as "clear evidence of a sustained resurgence in the language" when the only thing that has been clear is that it has been in continuous decline for years. Such a deluded view is actually counter productive to the health of the language as it would lead one to believe that the strategies employed since independence have succeeded. People like you are killing the language.

Again your post feverishly attempts to misrepresent me.
I pointed out correctly that those with the ability to speak Irish is now over double the amount of 1926.
That gaelscoileanna are opening at an unprecedented rate in our cities North and South.
The fact that professionals are now the group with the highest literacy is relevant because that is a basis for it to be used in commerce: an essential step in revitalising a language wouldnt you agree?

I dread the day that, without change or reform in how we promote Irish, conversations with someone like you will begin to resemble Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch.

Looks like my pointing out blatant hypocrisies in your earlier posts has hit you right on the ego!

If you can actually resort to something more than simplistic and empty rhetoric, such accusations may be more believable. If you want to find someone who has betrayed his nation or the Irish language, I suspect you will have better luck finding them in a mirror.

You misunderstand. Most of the people on this thread who are against the Irish language are against it as an extension of a hatred of nationalism. Language has nothing to do with nationalism. Therefore many of these arguments are unreliable and amount to no more than an irrational attack on their perception of Irish nationalism.

Valmont

T runner wrote: »

Language has nothing to do with nationalism

I thought we had already established that yes, a state sponsored Irish revitalisation scheme is indeed nationalistic in nature for the historical reasons that have been discussed throughout the thread.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good point, I missed that! Why were books in existance in "mainland Britain" if there was no-one to read them?
And why were only Irish books banned in Ireland?

By 1840, Ireland had only 1,973 national primary schools, educating 232,000 children, a tiny fraction of the population (estimated at 8,175,124 in 1841). Furthermore, only 100,000 of those children attended school on a daily basis. Primary education up to age 12 did not become compulsory in Ireland until 1876; but in the census of 1881, only 18% of the Irish population was recorded as Irish-speaking. We can certainly debate what does accounts for the decline of the Irish language, but it's really stretching it to blame the primary schools of the day.

Why are you comparing the amount of children in Primary education with the total population instead of the amount of children of primary school going age as you should have? Are you trying to deliberately mislead us?

232,000 is significant 9 years after the education act. None of these children will learn Irish or speak it in school. If you want to learn Irish or learn through Irish you must do it illegally in a hedge school. No-one will have read an Irish book as they are banned from publication. That means that Nobody will be able to read or write in Irish Irish language is thus effectively killed permanently from the middle classes altogether and commerce. The 18% figure is therefore hardly surprising. Your refusal to accept

I nwtice your evasive use of the passive voice when you say that it "has been historically accepted as attempted linguicide." Accepted by whom? Can you give any historical references?

Heres a few I know of:

Modern Ireland 1600-1972
R.F Foster

The Cause of ireland
Liz Curtis

The Narrow Ground
ATQ Stewart

If I find any web based Ill post.

Hmm... He must have me on ignore because once again he's bypassed me completely. :rolleyes:

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The national schools started being established in 1831. Your figure is for 1867 after 35 years of students had gone through primary school with Irish prohibited. Your quote below:

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Irish had never been an "economic force." That's precisely why the Irish shifted to speaking English.

Thats absurd. You are saying that economics did not exist in Ireland until the advent of the English language.

The proscription on printing books during the Penal Laws did not obliterate "all Irish publications"; it merely prolonged the longstanding scribal tradition in Ireland. To quote the Oxford Companion to Irish Literature: "That there was a great deal of Irish literature circulating in [handwritten manuscript form], whether tales of various types, bardic poetry, stories of Cú Chulainn or Fionn, devotional writing, Gaelic historiography, aislingí or Jacobite poetry, is attested by Crofton Croker, who remarked in the 1820s that every Munster village possessed its Gaelic manuscripts" (357). Again, however, I'm sure that the continuation of the manuscript tradition during the period of the Penal Laws, and the fact that Catholic Emancipation happened in 1829—a time when you claim that the Irish Language was alive and well in every corner of the nation—will not deter you from your claims.

Dont strawman. I have never claimed "... in 1829—a time when you claim that the Irish Language was alive and well in every corner of the nation". I have set out the sequence of teh language shift as below on more than one occasion.

The language shift in Ireland occured over 300 years. Factors affecting its decline included the attempted movement of the Irish population to Connaught by Cromwell. The Penal Laws, The Education Act of 1831 which banned Irish from national schools and meant that within a generation it was only used by uneducated serfs. The Act which reinforced Irish as the language of the underprivilaged and uneducated by banning the publishing of books in Irish. Would the former Soviet States' languages have stubbornly lasted 300 of Russian linguicide until independence? I doubt it.

The question was "WHY DID THE ENGLISH BAN THE PUBLICATION OF BOOK IN THE IRISH LANGUAGE"?
(There was no answer in all that spoofing).

Since the middle of the eighteenth century, the Irish themselves had identified Irish as a parochial language that mitigated against economic opportunity. And so they switched to speaking English.

No, as Irish speakers massively bore the brunt of the death toll in the famine, they associated speaking Irish with death by starvation.
The reason that the Irish speaking population was by deliberate actions by the British government, including relocating Irish speakers to Connaught, The Penal Laws, The education act of 1831 and banning the publication if Irish literature. Some of these are classic techniques for linguicide and were used by Stalin to try and destroy the Ukranian language.

Again, you seem to be claiming that an analogous "artificial famine" was inflicted upon Ireland—so you are again coming close to blaming the English for deliberate genocide. Perfectly consistent with your "800 years" mantra, of course

Another strawman. I am obviously claiming that Stalin used the identical technique of banning the education in and publication of Ukranian as the British did with Irish in the 18th century. You cant defend it so you defend the strawman.

You have not been able to deny the actions of the British Government to inflict linguicide other than to claim that these attempts were not successful.

You must also accept that Irish language speakers were at odds with Imperialists by the actions of the British government and were forced into a nationalist standpoint. Therefore posters here criticising the Irish language for its historical association with nationalism are being unfair. People should have the right to read, write and learn in their own language and have the right to reject a regime that denied this.

I do not think that the language should be revived for nationalist reasons (as people mean it on this thread).
It should be encouraged to protect and revitalise a minority indiginous language.

If you claim that the protection of Irish is only motivated by nationalism then you must also condemn the protection of Finland Swedish and other minority languages by thier government is also nationalism.

Peppapig

Valmont wrote: »

Bearing in mind that there are no tangible benefits to the economy from promoting such a program.

Its not all about economic benefits.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

Deleted User wrote: »

I raised this with you when you brought up the Education Act in the first place, but you chose to ignore it. But prior to the Education Act, there was no free education. So the only people capable of having formal education were those from more wealthy backgrounds or those entering the priesthood. By your own admission, the majority of Irish speakers were from the poor, which meant that they wouldn't have been able to afford any formal education prior to the Act.

In any case, since they were from the poorer classes, they would have been needed to work (being an extra mouth to feed) rather than gain an education that wouldn't have been of particular use to them. Thus its likely that only girls that weren't working in the workhouses would have the free time to attend these new national schools.

So your big objection is based on the prevention of Irish being taught in schools which wouldn't have catered to the majority of Irish speakers in the first place.

No doubt you'll ignore this once more. But the point remains that your objections are rather limited in the understanding of the era, and the real life options of the people living through it. I find that this is common in people who accuse of British intent to destroy the language. Simply put, these arguments fail to take note of the actual lifestyles of the very people they're talking about.

Donegalfella has already posted that 233,000 pupils were in the national school system by 1831 only 9 years after it was established. For poor people there was the option of "Hedge Schools" before and after
the Act of 1831: and these although illegal were used. The Act meant that the only education accessible through English would now get you out of seftdom.
The fact that Irish publications were ILLEGAL, meant that as an economic force Irish is dead within a generation. This means that it is no longer used by anyone in the middleclasses or upperclasses or by anyone wishing to be anything other than an uneducated peasant.
If you think this isnt deliberate fair enough, but tell me this: why was the publication of books in Irish banned by the British State?
If you dont give a straight up answer to this then please dont ask me to respond, I dont have much time on these fora.

97i9y3941

alot of people cant speak it,let alone i think its waste of taxpayers money translateing the documents into irish when its the taxpayers who can barely speak it are paying for fund of it,im actually surprise this hasnt come up yet in the cutbacks we have in gov at the mo..

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ill just cut and paste another answer as your method of debating seems to be to ignore the points you cant answer:

The Act meant that the only education accessible through English would now get you out of seftdom.
The fact that Irish publications were ILLEGAL, meant that as an economic force Irish is dead within a generation. This means that it is no longer used by anyone in the middleclasses or upperclasses or by anyone wishing to be anything other than an uneducated peasant.
Tell me this: Why was the publication of books in Irish banned by the British State?

Here is also a description of Soviet Imperial oppression of the Ukranian language.
Sounds eerily familiar.

Persecution and russification

Soviet policy towards the Ukrainian language changed abruptly in late 1932 and early 1933, ..... demanded to "immediately halt Ukrainianization in raions (districts), switch all Ukrainianized newspapers, books and publications into Russian and prepare by autumn of 1933 for the switching of schools and instruction into Russian".

Soviet Ukraine's autonomy was completely destroyed by the late 1930s.[citation needed] In its place, the glorification of Russia as the first nation to throw off the capitalist yoke had begun, accompanied by the migration of Russian workers into parts of Ukraine which were undergoing industrialization and mandatory instruction of classic Russian language and literature. Ideologists warned of over-glorifying Ukraine's Cossack past, and supported the closing of Ukrainian cultural institutions and literary publications. The systematic assault upon Ukrainian identity in culture and education, combined with effects of an artificial famine (Holodomor) upon the peasantry—the backbone of the nation—dealt Ukrainian language and identity a crippling blow from which it would not completely recover.[citation needed]