Is Irish a dead language?

SkepticOne

It's also interesting that there's very little hard information on the extent to which Irish is a living language in ireland.

Here's an extract from an introduction to a book written in the 60's by a German linguist: "Linguistic atlas and survey of Irish dialects"

We are not dealing with a language spoken over a wide area, but rather with the ruins of a language. We compare our work with the archaeologist's task of reconstructing an old building from a few heaps of stones, lying here and there in the place where the original building stood. Whether it was worth the trouble may be left to critics to decide.

djpbarry

20goto10 wrote: »

We have strong exports already but our imports are way too high. The Irish language economy would lessen our imports....

By how much?

dochas

SkepticOne wrote: »

But the interesting thing about these examples is that they're all institutional uses of the language.

What people want to know when they ask if Irish is a living language is whether there are places you can go where it is the predominant language for day-to-day practical communications.

I think the answer to this is that in most of the country Irish is dead. It is true many people have knowledge of the language but that is different to it being a living language. Some of these people may even be fluent and may meet with others to use the language socially, but this is not really a living language.

I used the example of Latin earlier in the thread. Latin is a dead language but it was once widely known among the educated classes of Europe. It was the language of discourse for science, theology and other subjects. Knowledge of the language and the fact that lectures were conducted in it (like your lectures in Galway) did not stop it from being a dead language. What made it a dead language was the fact that it was not used by ordinary people in day-to-day situations. For the most part that is also the situation in Ireland with Irish.

They may be institutionalised settings but Irish is taken by choice. It goes to show that the youth in this country don't see it as a dying language

Iwasfrozen

20goto10 wrote: »

It would in Irelands case. We have strong exports already but our imports are way too high. The Irish language economy would lessen our imports as well as generating jobs.

There are two questions I pose here.

1. What's wrong with having large amounts of imports? When we take into consideration Irish based products are more expensive, lacking th economy of scale of similar european businesses.
2. How would the use of the Irish language lessen imports?

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

... I think the answer to this is that in most of the country Irish is dead. It is true many people have knowledge of the language but that is different to it being a living language. Some of these people may even be fluent and may meet with others to use the language socially, but this is not really a living language....

Using that criterion, Mandarin is also a dead language, because in most of Ireland it is not spoken.

I use Irish socially and I never have, and never would, "meet with others to use the language", because I would consider that to be a trite exercise, an empty gesture; I meet with others for the pleasure of their company, and the language gets used because we have it, and are willing to use it.

Iwasfrozen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Using that criterion, Mandarin is also a dead language, because in most of Ireland it is not spoken.

Your logic fails you. Irish is not spoken in China but Mandarin is.

SkepticOne

dochas wrote: »

They may be institutionalised settings but Irish is taken by choice. It goes to show that the youth in this country don't see it as a dying language.

Well clearly there are a fair few people on this thread who don't see it as a dying language either but whether they are representative of the country as a whole is another matter as is whether they are correct in that view. Moreover some of them in these lecture in Galway could be learning the language for historical or cultural reasons in the way people might learn Latin or Greek.

What counts is what happens on the streets outside the University. Catalanonia is an area where the Catalan language is spoken in Spain. It is a living language there because if you go to a place like Barcelona and walk around, it is the language that is actually spoken in shops, businesses and on the streets. It lives. It is not a case of a few people thinking it is a living language.

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your logic fails you. Irish is not spoken in China but Mandarin is.

My logic is fine, thank you. If it were the case that in most of Ireland Irish is not spoken, that would not constitute a proof that Irish is dead or, as you put it "not really a living language".

Iwasfrozen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

My logic is fine, thank you. If it were the case that in most of Ireland Irish is not spoken, that would not constitute a proof that Irish is dead or, as you put it "not really a living language".

I don't believe I've said that. I also don't believe I've called irish a dead language.

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't believe I've said that. I also don't believe I've called irish a dead language.

So http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66782112&postcount=421 is simply an exercise in speciousness, is it? You are not really saying anything?

Iwasfrozen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66782112&postcount=421 is simply an exercise in speciousness, is it? You are not really saying anything?

Do you realise that I didn't post the message you linked?

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Using that criterion, Mandarin is also a dead language, because in most of Ireland it is not spoken.

I don't think Irish is dead either according to the strict definition of there being no children being brought up in the language.

But I don't think the fact that there are some children being brought up in the language or the fact that some people use it socially really captures what people mean by a living language.

French is living in France because when you go there that's the language they speak! It is actually quite hard to find areas in Ireland where you get the feeling just walking around that you are in a community where English is not the predominant language.

There's also the aspect which must be fairly unique, of a language being taught from the first days of primary school to the very end of secondary school in areas of the country where the language had died out. In these areas (the bulk of the country), the language would have historical or cultural interest but little practical value. This is like Latin or Greek widely taught in Irish and British schools though less so now.

So Irish is not dead as such, but has died out in much of the country. The extent to which it is a living language is prone to overestimation due to the fact that it is universally taught and large numbers of people do have some knowledge of the language. But I think people confuse this bit of knowledge with the idea that for them Irish is living.

If we were to consider Irish purely as a minority language, then perhaps you could point to areas, the Gealtacht areas, where it is at least partially alive (though I spent a summer in one where English was the main language), but as a national language it is more or less dead.

Unlike many I think a revival is actually possible, but it needs a much more focussed effort, not a continuation of the policies of compulsion that have failed over the last 90 years. The revived language would then be a living language.

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you realise that I didn't post the message you linked?

I do now! Apologies.

You jumped in so fast with your suggestion that my logic fails me that it brought about a failure in attention.

Iwasfrozen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I do now! Apologies.

You jumped in so fast with your suggestion that my logic fails me that it brought about a failure in attention.

That's ok.

SkepticOne

The argument is over whether Irish is a dead or living language. Clearly it has aspects of both. Neither dead nor alive properly capture the state the Irish language is in.

I think "zombie language" might be a good compromise - a language not dead, yet not alive by natural means either. We have zombie banks. Why not a zombie language?

Could we perhaps agree on that?

dlofnep

SkepticOne wrote: »

The argument is over whether Irish is a dead or living language. Clearly it has aspects of both. Neither dead nor alive properly capture the state the Irish language is in.

I think "zombie language" might be a good compromise - a language not dead, yet not alive by natural means either. We have zombie banks. Why not a zombie language?

Could we perhaps agree on that?

Not really.

Language death has a very clear defintion. The Irish language meets none of it's criteria. Irish is a minority language. Minority languages exist around the world, and I've yet to see any of them referred as a dead language. Irish is a living language, in that it is spoken natively and is not currently endangered.

A language's security is typically defined in two forms. Are the youth of today speaking it, and will it still be spoken in 100 years? I think we can both safey answer yes to both of the above questions. So the Irish language is neither dead, nor endangered nor is it even moribund.

Linguists have very clear definitions for language states, and I don't believe any of them are classified as "zombie languages". So for the sake of keeping in line with well established states and definitions, I'm going to have to say no - Irish is not a zombie language, and is very much a living language.

Red Alert

Irish is dead as a universal national language, because we as a nation have progressively killed it since independence. There's no way around that fact.

I got an A1 in higher level Irish in the leaving cert, mainly on the back of having a great teacher who had brilliant spoken Irish. Although I enjoyed his classes and enjoyed speaking Irish, I hated the literature section of the course. We did have an interesting novel to study, but the poetry section was nothing short of gibberish. Our teacher explained to us one day that the reason why the poetry was still there is that the course is set by gaeilgoiri from the gaeltachts, who insist on keeping the poetry. I was reminded of this when the Frontline show did a programme on compulsory Irish, and sure enough the woman from Maynooth's Irish department was adamant that the department should have to keep poetry and literature on the curriculum.

The summer following sixth year I got a job in a shop in Dublin city. Soon after I started I heard one of the girls having a conversation in Irish on her phone in the canteen. Turns out she was brought up speaking Irish by her granny, but she wasn't too pleased with her marks in the leaving cert. Her written Irish was excellent as well, but she found the literature part pretty undoable. So here's someone who's streets ahead of the general population in terms of linguistic ability, and yet receives a poor mark for her efforts.

I didn't really care either way until last november when I went to Copenhagen for a week. The difference is insane: they're there talking away in Danish to one another, and they'd switch to English without even thinking. One night I was out with about six danish people, an italian girl and a couple of norweigens and the topic of Irish came up. They couldn't believe what the situation here is. That night I really came to understand how foolish the way Irish is taught is.

It's such a pity, considering that TG4 are doing a great job and you've the odd Irish cafe/club/pub here and there. It's time to get rid of the gombeenmen who inflict the poetry on us and get the young people speaking the language. Oral Irish, basic written (like being able to read "Na scoitear" or "Siopa Ceann") and useful communication "as gaeilge" is what should be taught the length and breadth of the country. Leave the poetry to a different subject called "Irish Literature" or "Irish for Gaeilgoiri".

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think Irish is dead either according to the strict definition of there being no children being brought up in the language.

But I don't think the fact that there are some children being brought up in the language or the fact that some people use it socially really captures what people mean by a living language.

I have been careful not to talk up the state of Irish, but I think you are talking it down here. "Some" might be a small percentage of the population but, in absolute terms, it is a fairly large number. And the key point is that there is a continuous thread from native speaker to native speaker.

French is living in France because when you go there that's the language they speak!

France also is home to a minority Celtic language, Breton. It, like Irish, is a living language, but that fact is not evident to the casual visitor who is uninterested in such things.

It is actually quite hard to find areas in Ireland where you get the feeling just walking around that you are in a community where English is not the predominant language.

But they exist, even if you have yet to find them. I know pubs in Connemara and West Kerry where Irish is the principal language (I have not been much in other gaeltacht areas in recent years).

There's also the aspect which must be fairly unique, of a language being taught from the first days of primary school to the very end of secondary school in areas of the country where the language had died out. In these areas (the bulk of the country), the language would have historical or cultural interest but little practical value....

That's another matter, and I have not been debating that.

So Irish is not dead as such, but has died out in much of the country. The extent to which it is a living language is prone to overestimation due to the fact that it is universally taught and large numbers of people do have some knowledge of the language. But I think people confuse this bit of knowledge with the idea that for them Irish is living.

I know some people overestimate the use of Irish (while others may underestimate it). I try not to give undue weight to the "cúpla focal" cohort as evidence of the health of the language. They may represent an indicator of goodwill towards Irish.

If we were to consider Irish purely as a minority language, then perhaps you could point to areas, the Gealtacht areas, where it is at least partially alive (though I spent a summer in one where English was the main language), but as a national language it is more or less dead.

I think there is more Irish in some gaeltacht areas than might be evident to the casual visitor. There is a tendency to presume that all "stróinséirí" speak English, and to default to that language when they are present. On the other hand, I have already said that some so-called gaeltacht areas are a sham.

Unlike many I think a revival is actually possible, but it needs a much more focussed effort, not a continuation of the policies of compulsion that have failed over the last 90 years. The revived language would then be a living language.

I do not think a revival is possible if that means increasing the pool of people who speak Irish as a first language or have a fluent second-language command of it. We may be able to sustain it at something like its present level for the foreseeable future. The first requirement would be some political realism and honesty, and a new approach to policy-making.

Why does it matter to me, and to many others? Because it is a part of me: I have been shaped by the culture in which I grew up, and that includes an element of the Gaelic tradition. It is part of the beauty and romance that enriches my life. Lord, to hear Róisín Elsafty sing and to understand the song is reason enough to learn the language!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsvAU1SO0Uk

P. Breathnach

Red Alert wrote: »

Irish is dead as a universal national language, because we as a nation have progressively killed it since independence. There's no way around that fact.

I wish people would refrain from announcing the death of Irish. That involves a technical definition.

I have no problem agreeing that Irish is not, and never again will be, the dominant language of Ireland. Its decline started long before independence, but policy since then has failed to stem the decline.

I got an A1 in higher level Irish in the leaving cert, mainly on the back of having a great teacher who had brilliant spoken Irish. Although I enjoyed his classes and enjoyed speaking Irish, I hated the literature section of the course. We did have an interesting novel to study, but the poetry section was nothing short of gibberish. Our teacher explained to us one day that the reason why the poetry was still there is that the course is set by gaeilgoiri from the gaeltachts, who insist on keeping the poetry....

In my day, a long time ago, the literature component of the course was even greater in quantity and in importance in the marking schemes. Like you, I didn't like it (except for a couple of poems of the amhrán tradition). Love of language and love of literature are different things.

I think your teacher was mistaken about who insisted on keeping the literature content. That is typical of what universities impose on Leaving Certificate courses.

dlofnep

Red Alert wrote: »

I got an A1 in higher level Irish in the leaving cert, mainly on the back of having a great teacher who had brilliant spoken Irish. Although I enjoyed his classes and enjoyed speaking Irish, I hated the literature section of the course. We did have an interesting novel to study, but the poetry section was nothing short of gibberish. Our teacher explained to us one day that the reason why the poetry was still there is that the course is set by gaeilgoiri from the gaeltachts, who insist on keeping the poetry. I was reminded of this when the Frontline show did a programme on compulsory Irish, and sure enough the woman from Maynooth's Irish department was adamant that the department should have to keep poetry and literature on the curriculum.

The summer following sixth year I got a job in a shop in Dublin city. Soon after I started I heard one of the girls having a conversation in Irish on her phone in the canteen. Turns out she was brought up speaking Irish by her granny, but she wasn't too pleased with her marks in the leaving cert. Her written Irish was excellent as well, but she found the literature part pretty undoable. So here's someone who's streets ahead of the general population in terms of linguistic ability, and yet receives a poor mark for her efforts.

I didn't really care either way until last november when I went to Copenhagen for a week. The difference is insane: they're there talking away in Danish to one another, and they'd switch to English without even thinking. One night I was out with about six danish people, an italian girl and a couple of norweigens and the topic of Irish came up. They couldn't believe what the situation here is. That night I really came to understand how foolish the way Irish is taught is.

It's such a pity, considering that TG4 are doing a great job and you've the odd Irish cafe/club/pub here and there. It's time to get rid of the gombeenmen who inflict the poetry on us and get the young people speaking the language. Oral Irish, basic written (like being able to read "Na scoitear" or "Siopa Ceann") and useful communication "as gaeilge" is what should be taught the length and breadth of the country. Leave the poetry to a different subject called "Irish Literature" or "Irish for Gaeilgoiri".

Hear hear!

Focalbhach

SkepticOne wrote: »

But the interesting thing about these examples is that they're all institutional uses of the language.

What people want to know when they ask if Irish is a living language is whether there are places you can go where it is the predominant language for day-to-day practical communications.

I think the answer to this is that in most of the country Irish is dead. It is true many people have knowledge of the language but that is different to it being a living language. Some of these people may even be fluent and may meet with others to use the language socially, but this is not really a living language.

I used the example of Latin earlier in the thread. Latin is a dead language but it was once widely known among the educated classes of Europe. It was the language of discourse for science, theology and other subjects. Knowledge of the language and the fact that lectures were conducted in it (like your lectures in Galway) did not stop it from being a dead language. What made it a dead language was the fact that it was not used by ordinary people in day-to-day situations. For the most part that is also the situation in Ireland with Irish.

I have heard Irish used casually for everyday conversation (and for some fairly heated debates) in Dublin, in Donegal, and in Belfast. I won't speak for other parts of the country, but all 3 are places where I live/lived, and where I came across Irish naturally rather than looking for it in a Gaeltacht area.

You may not have come across people using Irish, but it happens. Anecdata, of course, but this discussion has been anecdote-heavy from the beginning so: for what it's worth.

20goto10

Red Alert wrote: »

Irish is dead as a universal national language, because we as a nation have progressively killed it since independence. There's no way around that fact.

I got an A1 in higher level Irish in the leaving cert, mainly on the back of having a great teacher who had brilliant spoken Irish. Although I enjoyed his classes and enjoyed speaking Irish, I hated the literature section of the course. We did have an interesting novel to study, but the poetry section was nothing short of gibberish. Our teacher explained to us one day that the reason why the poetry was still there is that the course is set by gaeilgoiri from the gaeltachts, who insist on keeping the poetry. I was reminded of this when the Frontline show did a programme on compulsory Irish, and sure enough the woman from Maynooth's Irish department was adamant that the department should have to keep poetry and literature on the curriculum.

The summer following sixth year I got a job in a shop in Dublin city. Soon after I started I heard one of the girls having a conversation in Irish on her phone in the canteen. Turns out she was brought up speaking Irish by her granny, but she wasn't too pleased with her marks in the leaving cert. Her written Irish was excellent as well, but she found the literature part pretty undoable. So here's someone who's streets ahead of the general population in terms of linguistic ability, and yet receives a poor mark for her efforts.

I didn't really care either way until last november when I went to Copenhagen for a week. The difference is insane: they're there talking away in Danish to one another, and they'd switch to English without even thinking. One night I was out with about six danish people, an italian girl and a couple of norweigens and the topic of Irish came up. They couldn't believe what the situation here is. That night I really came to understand how foolish the way Irish is taught is.

It's such a pity, considering that TG4 are doing a great job and you've the odd Irish cafe/club/pub here and there. It's time to get rid of the gombeenmen who inflict the poetry on us and get the young people speaking the language. Oral Irish, basic written (like being able to read "Na scoitear" or "Siopa Ceann") and useful communication "as gaeilge" is what should be taught the length and breadth of the country. Leave the poetry to a different subject called "Irish Literature" or "Irish for Gaeilgoiri".

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, but what you are saying highlights the failure at primary school level. Everyone should have the linguistics mastered by secondary school, leaving the curriculum to focus on literature and poetry in much the same way as English is taught.

20goto10

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There are two questions I pose here.

1. What's wrong with having large amounts of imports? When we take into consideration Irish based products are more expensive, lacking th economy of scale of similar european businesses.
2. How would the use of the Irish language lessen imports?

1. Do I really need to explain why less imports is better for the economy?
2. I've already stated that wide spread day to day use of the Irish language would create a demand for Irish language products. Granted, these could still be imported but realistically this would be a home grown industry.

Red Alert

Your point about having the basics mastered would make more sense if Irish became a language common in daily use, since the kids would be immersed more in it. The fact is that we are "where we are currently" as regards to Irish ability among teachers, and improving the teaching of Irish is something that could take decades as standards of teacher training would improve.

The removal of compulsory literature from the second level curriculum would leave a large amount of time for people to become fluent in the language, by learning the concepts necessary for everyday written and particularly oral communication. We really need to shake ourselves out of the mindset that blindly teaching the Irish course as an analogue of the English course will get us anywhere - we need to refactor it along the lines of the French or German courses.

I wouldn't just make it a sterile language class, however. There's plenty of opportunity to include topics such as Irish music, Stair na Gaeilge, Gaeilge sa mhean cumarsaide and Irish Culture. I just strongly believe that making people analyze very abstract concepts from poems in particular through a language that they're not 100% fluent in is counterproductive - a lot of us (myself included) found English poetry horrendous to deal with. Once people aren't made dread the subject due to the heavy and impenetrable curriculum it will flourish.

djpbarry

20goto10 wrote: »

Everyone should have the linguistics mastered by secondary school, leaving the curriculum to focus on literature and poetry in much the same way as English is taught.

Can you not accept that this is totally unrealistic? Compulsory Irish does not work and never will. As soon as you make anything compulsory, you turn kids away from it. Look at the low level of mathematical ability among current leaving cert students, for example.

20goto10 wrote: »

1. Do I really need to explain why less imports is better for the economy?

Please do - imports are not necessarily a bad thing. For example, should we reduce the amount of foreign films, music and literature that we import?

20goto10 wrote: »

2. I've already stated that wide spread day to day use of the Irish language would create a demand for Irish language products.

I'm sceptical about this, because a large market for such products already exists in the US. Would an increase in the number of Irish speakers here really have a significant economic impact?

Wolfe Tone

I will tackle the imports question: Imports are not bad, but if they exceed exports then we are in major trouble.

If a deficit in the balance of payments is a regular occurrence more money is leaving than coming in. Thats bad.

It also depends on the nature of the imports too. (If we are exporting raw materials and importing finished goods that is basically a neo colonial relationship. We had one with Britain hence protectionism was needed.) And there is little scope for economic growth.

Less imports will mean less leakages from the economy. Thats desirable. Ireland as an export orientated economy needs to export more than it imports. Uncontrolled imports also damage indigenous companies. For example we have no clothing industry as it is easier and cheaper to get them from china, hence job losses here. A protectionist tariff of a 100% on goods like that which are uneconomical to produce here might make it cheaper to make them here, hence more jobs. As a country the aim should be to have as little imports as possible. An element of self sufficency would reduce unemployment but would also have adverse affects.


Basically the greater the gap between export and imports the better it is for the economy. Think of exports as income and imports as expenditure(in monetary terms). We want more MONEY coming in(goods going out of the country:Exports) than money going out(goods coming in: Imports)


I think I have that right, but economics was never my best subject.

djpbarry

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Uncontrolled imports also damage indigenous companies. For example we have no clothing industry as it is easier and cheaper to get them from china, hence job losses here. A protectionist tariff of a 100% on goods like that which are uneconomical to produce here might make it cheaper to make them here...

...and would cause the cost of clothing to skyrocket. If something is uneconomical to produce here (your words), then we shouldn't be producing it here.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

As a country the aim should be to have as little imports as possible.

So we should aim for zero imports? No more Hollywood movies? No more oranges and bananas? No more German cars?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Basically the greater the gap between export and imports the better it is for the economy.

Surely the aim should be to maximise our standard of living (in a sustainable manner)?

Wolfe Tone

I was just explaining why having too much imports is a bad thing. Nothing more. I don't want to get into a full on economic debate.

Through protectionist policies you can make it uneconomical to import things. I don't want to get into an economical debate about what would happen due to the increase in the price of clothing and the knock on effect it would have (that money would remain in the economy, whereas if we were to import it that money would leave it) I don't want to start going on about the multiplier either. We could bring absolute advantage and comparative advantage in too, but I don't see the point. Totally off topic.

It depends on your economic stance regarding zero imports. I think in todays world it is impossible. Indeed we need oil etc. But the larger the gap between exports and imports the better. The bigger the gap between money entering the economy(injections) and the money leaving the economy(leakages) the better. We want more money entering the circular flow of income than leaving it.

If tons of money is leaving the economy we will have to borrow to make up the difference. Not good.

djpbarry

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I don't want to get into a full on economic debate.
...
Totally off topic.

Well, no, it isn't really. You're advocating the creation of a protectionist, Dev-style Irish nation of gaelgóirs, which would apparently be an economic success. I think it's only fair that you flesh-out the reasoning behind such a belief, because to me, it sounds like an unmitigated disaster.

Wolfe Tone

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, no, it isn't really. You're advocating the creation of a protectionist, Dev-style Irish nation of gaelgóirs, which would apparently be an economic success. I think it's only fair that you flesh-out the reasoning behind such a belief, because to me, it sounds like an unmitigated disaster.

I was Frozen originally asked the question about what is wrong about having too much imports. I answered it. Thats it. I advocated nothing.
The clothing example was just that: an example. An example of what could be done to reduce imports. Personally I would rather see attempts to increase exports rather than reduce imports. Thats the policy that has pretty much been adopted.

It is true that the bigger the gap between imports and exports the better it is for the economy. Thats the point I was making. Too much imports is a bad thing. Nothing more. Anything which could have a benefit towards the balance of payments should be looked at.

I explained this:

1. Do I really need to explain why less imports is better for the economy?